Shoplifting false imprisonment is defined as the unlawful restraint of a retail theft suspect that affects their freedom of movement. Usually, this involves confining a person within fixed boundaries like an office or room. Both the threat of being physically confined and actually being physically confined can be considered false imprisonment if the suspected shoplifter is not free to leave.
Uniformed security officers sometimes give the impression that they are operating under some color of authority and that customers must comply with their demands. The laws vary based on the jurisdiction and a situation may dictate what is reasonable cause or restraint or confinement, under the circumstances.
Shoplifting False Imprisonment: Elements
The elements of this crime are that the restraint or confinement must be unlawful and actually restrict the person’s freedom of movement. Detaining and handcuffing a customer and transporting them to some backroom without reasonable cause could obviously be considered false imprisonment. Less obvious false imprisonment is when a store manager or security officer directs a customer to go to a bounded area to question them about a suspicious credit card or check transaction without reasonable cause and they believe that they are not free to leave.
Some retailers misinterpret the state merchants’ statute and believe they can detain a customer for almost any rule infraction while they collect the person’s identification, fill out trespass forms, or take their photograph. For example, detaining a customer in an office for refusing to stop for an exit bag check or after a door sensor (EAS) alarm could be deemed as false imprisonment without reasonable cause to suspect that they had stolen anything. See my article on Shoplifting: Probable Cause.
Shoplifting False Imprisonment: Consent is a Defense
If a customer consents to an exit bag check or to a meeting in the manager’s office, it is not considered false imprisonment unless that consent is later revoked by the customer. For example, that voluntary meeting can change to confinement if the exit to the room is repeatedly blocked by the store manager who wants to keep the customer detained until the police arrive. A customer must always be free to go unless lawfully detained.
Shoplifting False Imprisonment: Employees Falsely Imprisoned
Employees can be falsely imprisoned too if during a suspicion of theft interview turns into an interrogation and they are prevented from leaving the room. The denying of simple employee requests to use the bathroom, to get water, or make a phone call could be construed as imprisonment especially if they are not being charged with any crime. It could also be considered false imprisonment if the employee interrogation continues for an excessively long period of time under the veiled threat of being arrested if they don’t confess to the loss.
Learn More about Premises Liability Litigation
Download 113-page eBook written by Security Expert Chris E. McGoey
- Security Expert’s Guide to Premises Liability Litigation
- Evaluating Crime Foreseeability and Inadequate Security Cases