Derouen v. Miller
614 So. 2d 1304, 1993 WL 57496 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's merchant immunity statute (La.C.Cr.P. art. 215), a merchant with reasonable cause to suspect shoplifting must conduct a reasonable questioning of the suspect before they are authorized to detain that person for arrest by a peace officer. A merchant who detains a suspect for arrest without first questioning them is not immune from civil liability for false imprisonment.
Facts:
- Sheila Lane Derouen was shopping at a Winn Dixie grocery store managed by William Miller.
- Another Winn Dixie employee, Raymond Gaudet, observed Derouen place an object in her purse.
- Gaudet informed Miller, who then observed Derouen in the check-out line and later in the aisles.
- Miller confronted Derouen, falsely claiming he saw her take a bag of shrimp out of her purse through a surveillance mirror.
- Derouen denied the allegation.
- Without any further questioning or investigation, Miller had Derouen taken to a room in the back of the store.
- Miller called the police, who arrived, escorted Derouen through the front of the store, and arrested her for shoplifting.
- Derouen was later found not guilty of the shoplifting charge in a criminal trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheila Lane Derouen sued William Miller and Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court for false imprisonment.
- The trial court found in favor of Derouen, ruling that Winn Dixie acted unreasonably by failing to question Derouen before calling the police.
- The trial court awarded Derouen $10,000.00 in damages.
- Winn Dixie and Miller (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 who has reasonable cause to suspect a person of shoplifting have the statutory authority under La.C.Cr.P. art. 215 to detain that person for arrest by a peace officer without first conducting a reasonable questioning?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, J.
No. A merchant does not have the statutory authority under La.C.Cr.P. art. 215 to detain a suspected shoplifter for arrest by a peace officer without first conducting a reasonable questioning. The court reasons that the statute's authorization to 'detain a person for questioning' and its subsequent statement that a merchant 'may also detain such a person for arrest' are 'inextricably linked.' The phrase 'such a person' in the second sentence refers back to the 'person detained for questioning' in the first. Therefore, questioning is a mandatory prerequisite to detaining someone for arrest under the statute. Had the legislature intended to create two independent options—either question or detain for arrest—it would have used the disjunctive 'or' or placed the provisions in separate paragraphs. The purpose of the statute is to grant merchants immunity, but only when they comply with its terms, which include a reasonable post-detention inquiry before escalating to a detention for arrest.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Louisiana's merchant privilege statute, establishing that the authority to detain for arrest is not an independent power but is contingent upon a preceding, reasonable inquiry. It reinforces the principle that a merchant's immunity from false imprisonment claims is conditional and requires affirmative steps to verify suspicions before involving law enforcement. The case serves as a warning to retailers that skipping the investigatory step of questioning a suspected shoplifter exposes them to civil liability, even if they initially had reasonable cause for the detention. It solidifies a required two-step process for merchants: 1) reasonable detention for questioning, which, if it establishes 2) probable cause, may then lead to a detention for arrest.
