dd mmmmm yyyyy
There are 4 elements in the statute:
the apprehender being an adult employee of the merchant
probable cause
detention in a reasonable manner
detention for a reasonable length of time
The security guard was under instructions from the employee and being an assigned personnel of a security contractor, he was thus well within his authority to apprehend Martha.
The account of the act of theft by the employee was in two actions: Martha took the seat from a table and she placed her baby in it. The account was not true as she couldn’t have taken the seat from anywhere as the baby was in her arms the whole time. She could not have placed her baby in it for the same reason as well.
There are reasons to question probable cause. An act of theft is serious enough for instantaneous action on the part of a witness. Why didn’t the employee confront Martha or notify security immediately? Martha was still able to take time to pay at the counter and walk out of the store. The lack of urgency on the employee’s part suggests of doubt and uncertainty.
In the absence of immediate action by the employee, the other strong evidence would be CCTV footing of which there was no mention. There was also no third party witness presented. The presence of the price tag on the seat would have been sufficient as probable cause but it was seen and thus was not material to the case.
There were also faults that made the detention unreasonable. The act of grabbing was unnecessary as the guard could have given first a stern warning of physical handling upon resistance. The act of hesitation of Martha is a natural reaction and does not yet be construed as resistance. The act of grabbing in public view put to unnecessary shame on Martha. This was yet extended in keeping her in a public place where people can gawk at her. K-Mart has office areas which can serve as a better detention place for a woman with a baby.
The detention time of 30 minutes may not be unreasonable if the employee had to spend time in the toilet. Any other reason can point to unnecessary waiting for Martha.
K-Mart may not be able to establish probable cause and be guilty of lapses for unreasonable detention. Martha can win her case for false imprisonment.
