Raiford v. May Department Stores Co.
1999 WL 627892, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6251, 2 S.W.3d 527 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, a merchant's statutory privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter, when supported by probable cause sufficient for a citizen's arrest, includes the right to conduct a contemporaneous search of the suspect's person and the area within their immediate control.
Facts:
- Kristen Raiford, Kamelia Namazi, and Jessica Soria entered a Foley's department store.
- Gloria Lopez, a Foley's loss prevention officer, observed the three teenagers acting suspiciously and selecting several purses.
- Lopez watched through fitting room door louvers as Raiford and Namazi removed stuffing from the purses and as all three girls later placed personal items into the empty purses.
- After the girls exited the store without paying for the purses, Lopez and other security personnel stopped them.
- Lopez then conducted a 'pat-down' search of each girl to check for weapons or additional merchandise.
- During the search, Lopez lifted Raiford's blouse to view a bra label and asked Namazi and Soria to unbutton their pants to investigate suspicious bulges.
- Namazi's pants accidentally fell down during the search, and Lopez accidentally grabbed a portion of Soria's underwear.
- Raiford and Namazi provided written statements admitting they stole the purses, and Soria admitted she knew about the theft.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristen Raiford, Kamelia Namazi, and Jessica Soria (appellants) sued Foley's department store and its parent company (appellees) in a Texas trial court for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found no liability on the part of Foley's.
- The trial court entered a 'take nothing' judgment in favor of Foley's, meaning the girls were awarded no damages.
- The girls (as appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District.
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 trial court err by instructing a jury that a merchant's statutory privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter also includes a right to conduct a contemporaneous search of the person?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Amidei
No. A trial court does not err by instructing a jury that the right to detain includes a right to search, because this is a proper statement of the law when a merchant's actions are justified under both the shopkeeper's privilege and the citizen's arrest statute. The court reasoned that while the shopkeeper's privilege statute only mentions detention, the appellees (Foley's) also pleaded the affirmative defense of a citizen's arrest under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 18.16. Texas case law, specifically Douglas v. State, has established that a lawful warrantless arrest by a private citizen authorizes a contemporaneous search of the person and the area within their immediate control. Because the loss prevention officer had probable cause to believe a theft had occurred, justifying a citizen's arrest, the search was authorized by law. Therefore, an instruction combining the right to detain with the right to search was not a misstatement of the law but was necessary to allow the jury to consider the merchant's full legal justification.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of a merchant's authority in Texas when dealing with suspected shoplifters. By linking the civil shopkeeper's privilege with the criminal citizen's arrest statute, the court affirms that a merchant's power extends beyond mere detention to include a search of the individual. This provides retailers with a more robust defense against civil tort claims like false imprisonment, assault, and invasion of privacy arising from loss prevention activities. Consequently, future litigation in this area will likely focus on whether the merchant had sufficient probable cause to justify a citizen's arrest, which then triggers the authority to conduct a contemporaneous search.
