Meadows v. FW Woolworth Company
1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7685, 254 F. Supp. 907 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a shopkeeper's privilege statute, a merchant has probable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter when the detention is based on a combination of factors including a prior police warning, the suspect's proximity to newly missing merchandise, and a general match to a provided description.
Facts:
- A Panama City police official warned F.W. Woolworth Co. manager, Wingate, to be on the lookout for a group of three teenage girl shoplifters, two with dark hair and one blonde.
- A manager of a neighboring store corroborated this warning.
- Two plaintiffs and a companion, three teenage girls, were in the Woolworth's store on two separate occasions.
- Around 4:30 P.M., Wingate noticed two hairpieces were missing from a counter shortly after a clerk confirmed the three girls had been near that counter.
- Wingate believed the girls generally fit the description he had been given by the police.
- After the girls exited the store, Wingate called them back inside and asked to look in their purses.
- Wingate's request was made in a conversational tone, without any threats or abuse.
- The entire encounter, including the search of two of the purses, lasted between three and ten minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against F.W. Woolworth Co. in federal court, alleging false imprisonment.
- The defendant, Woolworth Co., filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts entitled it to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law.
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 have probable cause to detain individuals and is the detention reasonable under Florida's shopkeeper's privilege statute, thus shielding the merchant from liability for false imprisonment, when the individuals generally match a police description of shoplifters, were present near where merchandise went missing, and the detention is brief and conducted in a non-threatening manner?
Opinions:
Majority - Carswell, Chief Judge
Yes, the merchant had probable cause and the detention was reasonable, shielding the merchant from liability. The Florida shopkeeper's privilege statute exonerates a merchant from civil liability for false imprisonment if an employee with probable cause detains a person in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time to recover unlawfully taken goods. The court found that probable cause was established by the combination of the prior police warning, the discovery of missing merchandise, the clerk's statement placing the girls at the counter, and the fact that the girls generally fit the description. The court also determined the detention was reasonable, as the manager's manner was conversational and non-threatening, and the duration was minimal, lasting at most ten minutes. Because both probable cause and reasonableness were established, the defendant's actions were protected by the statute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of a shopkeeper's privilege statute, illustrating the type of circumstantial evidence that can collectively amount to probable cause in a retail setting. It establishes that a merchant does not need direct observation of a theft to justify a brief detention, but can instead rely on a combination of factors like police warnings, missing inventory, and a suspect's proximity and description. The decision reinforces that the reasonableness of the detention, both in manner and duration, is as crucial as the initial probable cause. This provides merchants with a degree of legal protection when acting on reasonable, articulable suspicion to prevent shoplifting.
