Teel v. May Department Stores Co.
155 S.W.2d 74 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's privilege to detain a person for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner for investigation ends once the property is recovered. Any subsequent detention, particularly for the purpose of coercing a confession, exceeds the scope of the privilege and constitutes false imprisonment.
Facts:
- Leona Teel was dating A.F. Foster, a married man, who told her she could charge items to his account at Famous-Barr Company.
- Foster had previously purchased a fur coat for Leona on his account at the store.
- On November 29, 1939, Leona, accompanied by her sister-in-law Mabel Teel, went to Famous-Barr and purchased $93.39 worth of merchandise, falsely identifying herself to clerks as 'Mrs. A.F. Foster'.
- Mabel was aware that Leona was not Mrs. Foster and assisted Leona in carrying some of the purchased packages to Leona's car.
- After the store's credit manager confirmed with the real Mrs. Foster that no one was authorized to use the account, a store detective, Mr. Zytowski, detained both Leona and Mabel.
- The women were taken to the store's credit office, questioned, and eventually compelled to retrieve the packages from Leona's car and return them to the store.
- After all merchandise was returned, Zytowski allegedly refused to release the women until they both signed written confessions, which they did under threat of continued confinement.
Procedural Posture:
- Mabel Teel sued Famous-Barr Company in the trial court for false arrest and imprisonment.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Teel, awarding her $500 in actual and $500 in punitive damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment for $1000 against Famous-Barr.
- Teel (as appellant) appealed to the state's highest court, arguing the damages awarded were inadequate.
- Famous-Barr (as appellant) also appealed, arguing the trial court should have granted its request for a peremptory instruction and dismissed the case entirely.
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 store owner's privilege to detain a person suspected of unlawfully obtaining goods extend to holding that person after the goods are recovered in order to coerce a written confession?
Opinions:
Majority - Author not specified (Court Opinion)
No. While a store owner has a privilege to detain an individual for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner to investigate and recover property obtained through suspected criminal means, that privilege is not unlimited. The court found that Famous-Barr's agents were justified in their initial detention of Mabel Teel and Leona Teel up to the point where the merchandise was recovered. Leona's false personation to obtain goods on credit provided probable cause to believe a felony was being committed. However, the court ruled that the privilege to detain ended once its purpose—the recovery of the property—was accomplished. Any subsequent detention for the unrelated purpose of compelling a confession was unreasonable, exceeded the scope of the privilege, and could constitute false imprisonment. The court distinguished this misconduct from the initial, lawful detention, holding that Famous-Barr could be liable only for the harm caused by the unlawful portion of the confinement after the goods were returned.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'shopkeeper's privilege' by establishing that it is not a blanket immunity but is strictly limited in scope and purpose. The court's bifurcated analysis separates a lawful initial detention from a subsequent unlawful one, creating a new potential basis for liability. This prevents property owners from using the privilege as a tool for extra-judicial actions like coercing confessions after their property interest is no longer at risk. The ruling reinforces that the privilege is solely for the defense of property and does not grant the owner quasi-police powers, thereby protecting individuals' civil liberties against unreasonable restraint.
Unlock the full brief for Teel v. May Department Stores Co.