Delp v. Zapp's Drug & Variety Stores
395 P.2d 137, 238 Or. 538, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 441 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a merchant's privilege statute, a store has reasonable cause to detain a customer who places unpaid merchandise in a pocket and attempts to leave, and the detention is reasonable in manner if it is for the purpose of identifying the suspect. A merchant who then provides truthful facts to a police officer is not liable for false imprisonment if the officer, acting on their own discretion, chooses to detain the suspect further.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Mrs. Delp entered Zapp’s Drug & Variety Stores carrying items she had purchased at another store.
- While inside Zapp's, she picked up a package of dye and placed it in her jacket pocket, where it remained partially visible.
- A store detective, Mrs. Wood, observed Delp place the dye in her pocket.
- Delp proceeded to the checkout counter and paid for other merchandise she had selected, but did not pay for the dye in her pocket.
- Before Delp could exit the store, Wood stopped her and asked her to come to a back room for questioning.
- In the back room, Delp was detained for approximately 30 minutes, during which she refused Wood's requests to provide her name.
- After Delp eventually left the store, Wood called a deputy sheriff, reported the undisputed events that had occurred, and identified Delp to the officer on a nearby street.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Delp, filed a lawsuit for false imprisonment in a trial court against Zapp’s Drug & Variety Stores and its detective, Wood.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a merchant commit false imprisonment when they detain a customer who has placed an unpaid item in her pocket, hold her for approximately 30 minutes to ascertain her identity, and then report the facts to a police officer who continues the detention?
Opinions:
Majority - Denecke, J.
No. The merchant's actions did not constitute false imprisonment. The merchant's privilege statute provides a defense where there is reasonable cause for the detention and it is conducted in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time. First, the undisputed facts that Delp placed unpaid merchandise in her pocket and went through the checkout line provided reasonable cause for the detention as a matter of law; the fact that the item was not completely concealed does not negate this cause. Second, detaining Delp for 30 minutes for the purpose of learning her name was reasonable in manner and duration, as a suspect's identity is the most basic information needed for an investigation. Third, the store employees' subsequent surveillance of Delp after she left did not constitute confinement. Finally, the defendants are not liable for any subsequent detention by the deputy sheriff because Wood merely reported the facts to the officer, who then acted on his own judgment and discretion rather than at Wood's direction.
Dissenting - Sloan, J.
Yes, a jury should have been allowed to decide the issue. The majority improperly treats the events as separate and distinct acts. The sum total of the defendants' conduct—from the initial stop to the pursuit and subsequent apprehension—should have been submitted to the jury to determine if the defendants' actions were reasonable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of Oregon's merchant's privilege statute, establishing that the concealment of unpaid goods, even if imperfect, constitutes 'reasonable cause' for detention as a matter of law. The decision affirms that detaining a suspect to ascertain their identity is a reasonable component of such a detention. Furthermore, it reinforces the common law principle that insulates a private citizen from liability for false imprisonment when they merely provide truthful information to law enforcement, who then act on their own discretion, thus protecting merchants who report suspected crimes.
