Skip to content

The Shopkeeper’s Dilemma

Question:

Sally, a store manager, observes a customer, Kevin, place a store item in his bag and head toward the exit without paying. Sally approaches Kevin, requests that he stop, and asks to see the item. Kevin refuses and begins to leave the store quickly. Sally detains Kevin by lightly grasping his arm and guiding him to the back office, where she holds him briefly until security arrives. Kevin claims that Sally’s detention was an unlawful use of force and sues for false imprisonment and battery. Analyze a defense for Sally.

Baseline Response

Issue
The issue is whether Sally’s detention of Kevin can be justified, specifically whether her actions were reasonable in both scope and duration to address the suspected shoplifting.

Rule
Store owners or employees may briefly detain individuals whom they reasonably suspect of shoplifting, as long as the detention is reasonable in manner and duration. As established in Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., store owners are entitled to use limited force to detain a suspect, but they cannot use force likely to cause serious injury unless the individual’s resistance necessitates such force for self-defense. Additionally, the detention should be no longer than necessary to confirm or disprove the suspicion of theft and to await further assistance, such as from security or law enforcement.

Application
Applying these principles, Sally observed Kevin concealing a store item in his bag and moving toward the exit, which would provide her with a reasonable basis to suspect theft. Her initial response—requesting that Kevin stop and show the item—aligns with the standard practice of minimizing confrontation. When Kevin refused to comply and began to leave quickly, Sally’s decision to detain him by grasping his arm was restrained and minimally invasive. This action did not involve excessive or injurious force, as it was a brief, physical gesture that did not harm Kevin and was only intended to prevent his exit while waiting for security.

Further, Sally took Kevin to a back office, which indicates that she attempted to handle the matter discreetly, reducing the likelihood of embarrassment for Kevin. Holding him only until security arrived suggests that her detention was brief and directly tied to confirming or disproving her suspicion of theft, which meets the criteria for a reasonable and limited detention as outlined in Gortarez.

Counterarguments
Kevin might argue that Sally’s detention was excessive, contending that he should have been allowed to leave since he had not been physically violent or threatening. He may also argue that Sally’s act of physically holding his arm constitutes battery if it exceeded the necessary scope of reasonable detention. However, Sally could counter that because Kevin ignored her initial request to stop, she was justified in briefly holding his arm as a reasonable means to prevent his departure and secure the store’s interest against theft.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Sally’s detention of Kevin is likely to be deemed reasonable and lawful under the principles of arrest and detention. Her limited and non-injurious force was appropriate to the circumstances, and her restraint of Kevin was brief and purposeful, only lasting until security could intervene. Therefore, Sally’s defense would likely succeed, and she would likely not be liable for battery nor false imprisonment.