Smith v. Whatley
| Decision Date | 27 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13003,D,No. 2,2,13003 |
| Citation | 338 So.2d 153 |
| Parties | Carl SMITH and Patricia Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Stanford B. WHATLEY d/b/a Fantasiaefendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Hamilton & Sermons by Joel M. Sermons, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.
Lewis Weinstein by Richard Goorley, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before BOLIN, PRICE and HALL, JJ.
Patricia Smith was stopped and searched when her departure from defendant's clothing store activated a shoplifting warning device. The trial court held the search was unreasonable and awarded plaintiff $350 damages. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
The primary issue is whether, when the store employee admittedly detained and searched plaintiff, the employee had reasonable cause to believe plaintiff had committed a theft of merchandise.
Upon leaving defendant's store each customer was required to pass through a shoplifting detection device which would activate a signal if a customer attempted to leave the premises with merchandise from which the check-out clerk had not removed a special tag. As plaintiff was leaving the store this device was activated. Defendant's employee stopped plaintiff on the sidewalk adjacent to the premises and searched plaintiff's handbag and packages. Finding no merchandise in plaintiff's possession, the employee ordered her to reenter the store through the alarm device. The alarm was not activated when plaintiff reentered the building. The employee again searched plaintiff's bags inside the store and found no merchandise.
Louisiana C.Cr.P. Art. 215 authorizes a merchant to use reasonable force in detaining a customer for questioning on his premises when he has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed theft of merchandise.
Reasonable detention and search of a store customer as the result of activation of an automatic detection device similar to the one used in this case was held justified in Clark v. I. H. Rubenstein, Inc., 314 So.2d 489 (La.App.1st Cir. 1975).
In a written opinion the trial judge found defendant was justified in stopping and searching plaintiff on the sidewalk; that since the first search revealed nothing, the second detention and search were unjustified; and that the search inside, which was made in the presence of at least three people, entitled plaintiff to $350 damages for humiliation and embarrassment.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Whatley
...Jan. 7, 1977. In re: Stanford B. Whatley d/b/a Fantasia No. 2, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, 338 So.2d 153, Second Circuit, Parish of Application denied; no error of law in the judgment of the court of appeal. SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ sho......
-
Crosslin v. Whatley
... ... The trial court held the search was unreasonable and awarded plaintiff $350 damages. Defendant appeals and we affirm ... The facts of this case are identical to those in Smith et ux. v. Whatley d/b/a Fantasia No. 2, 338 So.2d 153 (La.App.2nd Cir., 1976). Plaintiff in that case was accompanied by plaintiff in this case when they were both stopped and searched by employees of defendant. It was stipulated that the testimony in this case would be the same as in Smith and a ... ...