Walmart and False Imprisonment: Shopkeeper’s Privilege Case Analysis
Introduction
Is Walmart liable for false imprisonment under the shopkeeper’s privilege statute? Based on the circumstances, Walmart officials were partially mandated to detain the suspect, but only if he consented. Karl Cockrell was willfully imprisoned without consent and harassed since none of the employees saw him steal anything, meaning they acted on perception (FindLaw, n.d). Therefore, the legal issue is that Walmart did not have the legal justification for implementing the shopkeeper privilege since the suspect did not attempt or commit any crime.
Rule
The shopkeeper’s privilege is a provision that allows business owners to detain suspects of theft for a reasonable amount of time. This rule applies in this case, considering that Walmart’s officials acted upon its provisions. False imprisonment is relevant to the case due to Cockrell’s unlawful restraint, which, without legal explanation, is classified as an international tort (FindLaw, n.d). Complete deprivation of liberty due to perceived crime is illegal and is a common law that can be used against the organization.
Analysis
Merchants are justified in protecting their resources as long as they maintain humanity. Walmart failed to prove its shopkeeper’s privilege because there was no reasonable ground to establish that Cockrell acted suspiciously. For instance, he stood by the women’s clothing section for five minutes, uninterested in any merchandise (FindLaw, n.d). After his detainment, the acting officer ordered Cockrell to remove his pants, although he only suspected that he had hidden merchandise in his shirt, which was an unnecessary procedure. He was required to remove his bandage, exposing his wound and indicating harassment.
Conclusion
Walmart is liable for defying the shopkeeper’s privilege due to excessive violations committed during detention. The provision requires the merchant to act only when they believe a person is engaged in or attempting to commit theft. In this case, the officer thought Cockrell wanted to steal without viable evidence, which defied the rule. The appellant’s harassment in the detention room was a significant consideration, making the company liable for false imprisonment and harassment.
Reference
FindLaw. (n.d). Walmart stores inc v. Cockrell. Web.