To: Senior Attorney and Associates
From:
Date:
Re: False Imprisonment, Confinement, and Shopkeeper’s Privilege
Issue
- Whether there are viable reasons, under Ohio’s False Imprisonment Law, to initiate a legal claim of illegal confinement when a security agent, wearing a branded uniform, instructs and guides a customer to a private room. The customer is withheld for a substantial amount of time while the agent undertakes a shoplifting inquiry under the suspicion that the claimant has done the crime.
- Can the defendant (our client), Save-A-Lot, use the shopkeeper’s privilege as an effective defense for the above claim (1)? The statute requires the defendant to prove probable cause for confinement and detainment in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable amount of time.
Brief Response
- For issue (1), the court is likely to rule in favour of the defendant because there were reasonable grounds for detainment. Through the branded uniform, the security agent exhibits authority, which convinces the customer to adhere to his request to stay while an investigation is conducted.
- For issue (2), the court is likely to find that there was shopkeeper’s privilege because there was probable cause and confinement in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period.
Statement of Facts
Save-A-Lot, security guard, Chambers, was on duty wearing his normal branded t-shirt with the store’s logo, showing he works for the store, and ‘security’ written on the back to show he was the security agent. At noon, Chambers observes a customer, Holt, behaving in a suspicious manner. Holt seemed to hurry up and down, picking all sorts of random items without showing the intent to purchase. Holt also seemed nervous. Collectively, all her behaviours were similar to the ones exhibited by a shoplifter. Chambers observed from a distance as Holt tried on at least five necklaces in the jewelry section. When she made a move towards the exit, Chambers hurriedly stopped her with voice calls and a light tap on the shoulder. Holt does not remember Chambers introducing himself as the security guard but accepted his request to follow him to a designated office for security inquiries.
Inside the office, Chambers inquired whether Holt had forgotten to pay for the necklace she was wearing. Holt admitted that the jewelry was a gift, but it could have been bought from the store. Holt handed over the necklace for a closer inspection, before Chambers requesting if he could search her purse. Upon finding nothing suspicious in the bag, Chambers asked for Holt’s driver’s license while requesting informed consent to copy it. Chambers would then head to the sales clerk to verify the necklace’s labels with the store’s inventory. Unfortunately, the sales clerk had already taken her half-hour break. As the two waited, Holt would regularly look outside the office toward Chambers, who would assure her that the process was taking more time using his index finger. The clerk would return thirty minutes later and, together with Chambers, verified that the necklace had already been bought. Chambers returned the jewelry to Holt and apologized for the inconvenience. It is estimated that Hot was at the store for almost 45 minutes.
Legal Analysis
The legal firm is charged with deciding two aspects of this case; first, if there was false imprisonment, and second, if there is a shopkeeper’s privilege. The first requires the claimant to show that she was restrained involuntarily or forcefully. The second requires the claimant to show that she was confined in an unreasonable manner and for an unreasonable amount of time. The claimant will also need to prove that there was no probable cause behind the detainment.
False Imprisonment
The court will likely rule that save-A-Lot and Chambers are not guilty of false imprisonment against the claimant. The court will assess how authority was displayed and applied throughout the interaction to assess whether it was forceful. Such a requirement is highlighted in Kalbfell v. Marc Glassman, where the court outlined that false imprisonment involves the deliberate confinement of a person without legal grounds or the detainment of an individual without their consent for a particular amount of time. The Kalbfell case shows that the defense should focus on two aspects, consent behind the confinement and the forceful detainment of an individual.
Holt’s claim has several similarities with the Kalbfell case that can be applied to determine its feasibility. According to Kalbfell v. Marc Glassman, the claimant sued a retail store following an unlawful detention. When the plaintiff entered the two, the store manager alerted the employees that she had been blacklisted from other retail stores[1]. The impression was that the claimant had been blacklisted because of criminal behaviours. The perception incentivized the store’s security guard to approach and detain the customer in a private room. While confined, the security guard and the store manager discussed the reasons behind the blacklisting Id.¶ [2]. The plaintiff overheard the store manager converse with an external operations manager about the situation, where he was advised to release the customer. The court passed a ruling favoring the plaintiff Id.¶ [3]. The court was of the opinion that an implied threat can be implied or actual from the security guard.
The question at hand is whether there is sufficient reason to believe there was an implied threat in the Save-A-Lot case. Unlike the Kalbfell case, the basis for suspicion was not blacklisting but rather the customer’s erratic behaviour since she entered the store Id.¶ [4]. It is unclear whether Chamber’s job as a security guard grants him the required skillset and experience to identify and discern behaviours that signify a potential shoplifter. However, Chambers took some time to observe Holt before deciding to detain her. Holt’s attempt to wear five necklaces but ending up having one on her neck was reason enough to persuade Chambers to confine her. Moreover, Holt did not respond to Chamber’s vocal calls to stop heading toward the exit.
Chambers does not represent any implied threat to Holt. While the claimant states that she does not remember Chambers introducing himself as the security guard, there is reason to believe that he did not have to. Foremost, the defendant wore a branded uniform with the word ‘security’ printed in bold. Therefore, Holt was aware of who Chambers was and what he did for the store. Another reason to show that there was no implied threat was the fact that Holt agreed to follow Chambers without being pulled or restrained. Given that she knew Chambers was the security guard, her acceptance to follow him to the reserved room was a sign of consent. She voluntarily followed him, meaning Chambers had implied his authority.
Shopkeeper’s Privilege
A court should find that there is enough reason for Save-A-Lot to claim Shopkeeper’s Privilege due to the existence of probable cause and confinement in a reasonable manner and time.
Probable Cause
The state of Ohio, via Hodges vs. Meijer Inc., stated that “(A) A merchant, or his employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that items offered for sale by a mercantile establishment have been unlawfully taken by a person, may, for the purposes outlined in division (C) of this section, detain the person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time within the mercantile establishment or its immediate vicinity[5].”
Ohio law is unclear on what constitutes questionable behaviour for probable cause. Therefore, Chambers had leeway in determining which customer behaviour seemed suspicious or not. According to the Meijer case, the claimant had walked inside a grocery store while carrying worn-out belts in her bag Id.¶ [6]. The claimant intended to replace the belts, which is why she showed them to the sales clerk to inquire if they were available. Since they were not, Hodges returned the belts inside the bag and continued shopping.
Two Meijer employees would stop Hodges, one standing in front and the other at the back, to impede his movements. The employees would search the claimant’s possession at the sport before detaining him in a reserved room in the store Id.¶ [7]. Hodges was not given a chance to explain the belts or provide consent to be taken to the private store. As a result, the courts ruled in favour of the claimant Id.¶ [8]. The Meijer store did not show probable cause, and the manner of detention was unreasonable.
There are stark differences between what happened to Hodges and Holt. In the subject case, the claimant’s movements and selection of items were irrational. She moved quickly, picking items without the intent to make a purchase. Secondly, she wore several necklaces on her neck. All of them were similar, including the one she walked into the store in. Therefore, even a trained police officer would make the mistake of thinking that she was stealing one of the necklaces. Furthermore, Chambers made sure to follow Holt around before deciding to detain her. Chambers had reason to believe Holt was about to leave the store with the unpaid necklace since she hurriedly moved toward the exit. The defendant did not respond to the security guard’s oral calls, further raising suspicion that she was shoplifting.
Nature of Confinement
The case setting the precedence for determining whether Save-A-Lot unreasonably detained Holt is Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2935.041. The statute mandates that detention be done in a reasonable manner and a reasonable length of time. Unfortunately, the law does not clarify which environmental conditions constitute ‘reasonable’. The court is provided leeway to decide on this factor per case. In the case of Stoffel v. Big Bear Stores Co., 90 CA 21, 1991 WL 99645, a customer was on her regular shopping run at ‘Big Bear Store’[9]. The client was moving her cart when a bunch of items fell into her purse without her knowledge. However, a Big Bear employee claimed that she saw Stoffel intentionally place the items in her bag Id.¶ [10]. The store manager had stopped Stoffel before she checked out of the store, only to find the stolen items upon searching her purse.
An investigation based on verifying the items with the store’s inventory found that Stoffel had not paid for the items. At this point, the store’s employees escorted Stoffel to a private room, detaining her for half an hour Id.¶ [11]. More items were found in the suspect’s bag, prompting the store to call law enforcement. Stoffel would later be arrested and charged with larceny. The suspect, now a claimant, had raised the issue that Big Bear Store’s confinement approach was illegal Id.¶ [12]. Unfortunately for her, the court ruled in favour of the merchant. There is sufficient reason to believe that Chamber’s treatment of Holt has some similarities with Stoffel’s claim.
Holt’s treatment was humane and did not exhibit any signs to suggest an actual or implied threat. According to details of her case, she was detained for forty-five minutes, thirty of which were reserved for the sales clerk’s right to take a break. There was no way for Chambers to make the verification until the employee resumed her position. Therefore, it can be argued that Holt was detained for fifteen minutes. During this time, she could see what Chambers was doing because the private room was near the store’s front desk. Unlike in Meijer’s case, the room was well-lit, allowing the occupants to peep outside. The good visibility and short distance between the room for confinement and the front desk are proven by the fact that Holt and Chambers engaged in frequent communication. The defendant would raise his index finger to inform the claimant that the verification process was taking longer. Given that Holt kept accepting Chambers’ gestures, it can be argued that she was giving consent to wait for the verification process to be completed without her leaving the room.
Conclusion
Fortunately for our client, Save-A-Lot, the court will most likely find that they did not violate their shopkeeper’s privilege and that there were no grounds suggesting false imprisonment. The merchant had valid reasons to detain the plaintiff. Foremost, Holt exhibited erratic behaviours while at the store. Secondly, Chambers made his role as security guard apparent to the customer. Thirdly, there was voluntary confinement to allow an investigation to be carried out. Lastly, there was detainment in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable amount of time. Store owners should comprehensively understand the loops in the false imprisonment and shopkeeper privilege laws to protect themselves from punitive fines in settlement claims. Just because they have the right to detain customers while carrying out shoplifting investigations does not make them law enforcement.
Bibliography
Hodges v. Meijer, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 806 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 1998). https://casetext.com/case/hodges-v-meijer-inc-1
Kalbfell v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2003 WL 21505264 (Ohio App. 7th Dist. 2003). https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/seventh-district-court-of-appeals/2003/2003-ohio-3489.html
Stoffel v. Big Bear Stores Co., 1991 WL 99645 (Ohio App. 4th Dist. 1991). https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-stoffel-v-big-bear-stores-co
[1]Kalbfell v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2003 WL 21505264 Ohio App. 7th Dist. 2003. (https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/seventh-district-court-of-appeals/2003/2003-ohio-3489.html)
[5] Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2935.041
[9] Stoffel v. Big Bear Stores Co., 1991 WL 99645 (Ohio App. 4th Dist. 1991). https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-stoffel-v-big-bear-stores-co