We have had a dramatic increase in misdemeanor shoplifting cases recently. The question has arisen about the authority of the police to arrest when the offense was not committed in their presence....typically store security catches the defendant, retrieves the stolen property and holds the suspect until police arrive. Statements are given to the police by store security and suspect is taken to jail.
I suppose the other option is to complete the case and issue an arrest warrant at a later day, however, due to the transient nature of some of these defendants, we have a difficult time locating them after the fact.
I have started looking through the cases, but have not found anything on point yet.
any ideas?

Yep. That's plenty for a warrantless arrest, and here's a case that'll cover you if you need it.

Hamel v. State,582 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App.1979)

Art. 18.16. PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF THEFT. Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the proceedings had without delay.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 985, ch. 399, Sec. 2(E), eff. Jan. 1, 1974.



Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 109, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

thanks guys....I was looking for the preventing consequences of theft language that I thought was there somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it....
Thanks again!

Glad to help. We have a Wal-Mart in town therefore we are intimately familiar with shoplifting cases.