Prieto v. May Department Stores Company
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 3768.,3768. |
| Parties | Georgina PRIETO, Appellant, v. The MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COM-PANY, and Ballard G. Hensley, Appellees. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
M. Michael Cramer, Washington, D. C., with whom H. Thomas Sisk, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
John Jude O'Donnell, Washington, D. C., with whom J. Roy Thompson, Jr., and Thomas H. McGrail, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Plaintiff, now appellant, brought this action against a department store and its store detective for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. On consideration of the depositions of plaintiff, the detective, and another store employee, the trial court granted summary judgment against plaintiff. She has appealed.
In the light most favorable to plaintiff, the following facts appear uncontradicted. Plaintiff, a native of Cuba with a limited command of English, entered the store's basement department shortly before the closing hour to purchase a pair of pajamas. She examined a pair displayed on a counter and when asked by a saleslady if she could be of assistance, plaintiff replied that she would like to try on the pajamas. The conversation was interrupted by the ringing of a bell signaling the closing of the store, and in response to the saleslady's statement that the store was closing, plaintiff said: "Don't worry about me because I don't buy nothing." The saleslady closed the cash register and departed. Plaintiff was then observed by the detective, who had overheard the conversation, to place the pajamas over a sweater and purse carried on her left arm and to proceed to the escalator and up to the main floor. Plaintiff then walked towards a door opening onto the street. The detective had followed her and he stopped her before she left the store. When he told her she had not paid for the pajamas, she replied that she had forgotten the pajamas were on her arm and that she did not want them. According to the detective, plaintiff also stated that if she had wanted to steal the pajamas she would have put them in her pocketbook.
The detective took plaintiff to an office in the store where she was questioned. The police were called and they took plaintiff to the Woman's Bureau where she was detained until released on bail. On the following day a charge against her of petty larceny was nol-prossed.
The only material differences between the plaintiff's version of the occurrence and that of the detective were these. The detective said plaintiff removed the price tag from the pajamas before taking them from the basement. She denied this. The detective stated that when he stopped plaintiff she had gone through one set of doors into the vestibule which opened onto the street. She said she was stopped before she reached the vestibule.
The question presented is whether the trial court correctly ruled as a matter of law that probable cause was established. One of the essential elements of an action for malicious prosecution is lack of probable cause.1 Although want of probable cause need not be alleged in an action for false imprisonment,2 a showing of probable cause constitutes a valid defense3 and will warrant a directed verdict for the defendant.4 There is no material distinction between reasonable grounds for detention in false imprisonment and probable cause in malicious prosecution.5 Where the facts are not in dispute the question of probable cause is one of law to be decided by the court.6
The undisputed facts here are that the detective observed plaintiff place on her arm a pair of pajamas for which she had not paid, leave the counter and go from the basement to the main floor by way of the escalator, and then proceed toward the street door. We must hold that these facts were sufficient to cause a reasonably prudent police officer or store detective to reasonably believe that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Hartman
...defendants.” Ammerman v. Newman, 384 A.2d 637, 639 (D.C.1978) (citing Smith v. Tucker, 304 A.2d 303 (D.C.1973) and Prieto v. May Dep't Stores, Co., 216 A.2d 577 (D.C.App.1966)); see Amobi v. D.C. Dep't of Corr., 755 F.3d 980, 992 (D.C.Cir.2014) (“To support a malicious prosecution claim, '[......
-
Henderson v. District of Columbia
...619 (1971). Where the facts are undisputed, the existence of probable cause is a question of law for the court. Prieto v. May Department Stores Company, 216 A.2d 577 (D.C. 1966). A police officer need not have probable cause in the constitutional sense to prevail in an action for false arre......
-
Jenkins v. Dist. of Columbia
...our case law that "where the facts that might establish probable cause are in dispute, their existence is for the determination of the jury." May Dep't Stores Co. v. Devercelli , 314 A.2d 767, 771 (D.C. 1973). Here, the material facts, recited above are not in dispute; that is, there were n......
-
In Re Ellipso Inc.
...verdict for the defendant. Smith v. Tucker, D.C. App., 304 A.2d 303 (1973), citing Prieto v. May Department Stores, Co., D.C. App., 216 A.2d 577 (1966). With reference to civil actions, probable cause has been said to be such reason supported by facts andPage 17circumstances as will warrant......