SYLVIA ROTHSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSON'S OF CORAL GABLES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sylvia Rothstein sued Jackson's of Coral Gables for false arrest after being detained while shopping. The trial court granted summary judgment for the store, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the store employee had probable cause under Florida law to detain her based on undisputed facts showing she had possession of merchandise and was moving away from its display location.
The court held that where facts constituting probable cause are undisputed, the question is for the court to decide as a matter of law, not for the jury. Under the undisputed facts, the store employee had probable cause to believe merchandise was being unlawfully taken, and the detention was reasonable in manner and duration, thus falling within the protection of Florida Statute § 811.022.
“The question here is whether the appellee's employee had probable cause under the undisputed facts to believe that a larceny had been committed and not whether the appellant was actually guilty of a larceny.”
Establishes that the legal standard is probable cause, not actual guilt, and that the question can be decided on undisputed facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile shopping at the appellee's department store, the appellant placed an article of merchandise around her waist and proceeded to move away from the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Upon the basis of four affidavits and the deposition of appellant, the trial judge entered a summary judgment in favor of the appellee. This appeal is from the summary judgment.
This was an action by the appellant fot false arrest which allegedly occurred while she was shopping in the appellee’s department store. The affidavits, as well as the deposition of the appellant, show that shé had possession of an article of merchandise belonging to the appellee, had placed it around her waist and had proceeded to move away from the rack where the merchandise belonged. No sales personnel were present. •
The appellant’s main contention in seeking a reversal of the summary judgment; *332is that the question of probable cause could not be resolved by summary judgment and was a question of fact for the jury. We conclude that the contention is without merit.,
Section 811.022, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., in substance provides that a merchant’s employee, who has probable cause for believing that goods of the merchant have been unlawfully taken, can recover them by taking the person into custody for the purpose of effecting a recovery. The detention must be in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time.
The facts are not in dispute and were such as could reasonably arouse the suspicions of the appellee’s employee and prompt him to determine whether or not the merchandise was being secreted for the purpose of evading payment therefor. Where there is no showing that the actions of the ap-pellee’s employee were unreasonable or without basis in fact, such actions, we conclude, fall squarely within the meaning and intent of § 811.022, supra. The question here is whether the appellee’s employee had probable cause under the undisputed facts to believe that a larceny had been committed and not whether the appellant was actually guilty of a larceny.
As a general rule, where facts constituting probable cause are in dispute, the question is one for the jury, but if there is no dispute as to such facts, the question is for the court. See 3 Fla.Jur., Arrest, § 21; Dixon v. State, 101 Fla. 840, 132 So. 684. The trial judge was eminently correct in concluding as he did that the affidavits, as well as the appellant’s deposition, established as a matter of law that the appellee’s employee had probable cause to believe that the goods of his employer had been unlawfully taken and that he could recover them by taking the person into custody and effecting a recovery thereof. There is no showing that the detention was unreasonable either in manner or duration.
The summary judgment appealed is, accordingly, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Meyer Weissman and Anna Weissman v. K-Mart Corp., 396 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…evel of probable cause required to support a later prosecution. Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Kincaid, 335 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Rothstein v. Jackson’s of Coral Gables, Inc., 133 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). With this in mind, and finding the existence of material issues of fact, the summary judgment granted to appellees Alvarez and K-Mart on the false arrest claim is reversed. Now directing our attention to appellants’ other cause…
-
Wash. Cnty. Kennel Club, Inc. v. Edge, 216 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…merchant’s employee who has probable cause for believing that goods of the merchant have been unlawfully taken, can recover them by taking the person into custody for the purpose of effecting a recovery. Rothstein v. Jackson’s of Coral Gables, Inc., 133 So. 2d 331 (Fla.App.3d 1961). The preamble to that enactment clearly indicates that its purpose is to assist merchants in the reduction of the proliferation of shoplifting crimes. Section 672.2-104 Florida Statutes, F.S.A., of the Uniform Commercial Code defin…
-
Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…uspected shoplifter by a merchant or the merchant’s employee is less than the probable cause required to support a later prosecution. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Kincaid, 335 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Rothstein v. Jackson’s of Coral Gables, Inc., 133 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Gatto’s counsel at oral argument conceded that Publix employees had probable cause to believe that Gatto had stolen Publix goods and contended merely that this probable cause dissipated when Gatto denied his guilt. Assuming, ar-g…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dixon v. State, 132 So. 684 (Fla. 1931)