Walmart Probable Cause

1.Probable Cause

The court will likely find that Stallmart had probable cause for detaining White due to having a justifiable rationale behind the conclusion for theft. Indiana courts have required probable cause to only to exist “where the facts found on reasonable inquiry would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that the accused had committed the crime charged” (Cite). Courts application of this test places the burden of proofs upon the store claiming probable cause and additionally considers the nature and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the suspect, the actions of concealment, and common customs of the store in question.

When a suspect has merchandise in question, the general position for

determining probable cause can be properly inferred beyond the points of payment. This is seen in Bowman v. Indiana, the store employee saw the suspect conceal a saw and “did not stop at the nearby cashier’s booth to pay for the item.” (Cite) In cases where racks of merchandise are past the points of payment, stores must wait for suspects to pass this point before probable cause is established. In both the cases of Street v. Shoe Carnival Inc. & Lazarus v. Sutherlin, the courts ruled in favor of the individual and not store. Extending the general position that probable cause cannot occur within the premise of purchasable merchandise. A prudent person would not necessarily presume theft, but rather the individual could still be shopping.
The existence of questionable and suspicious conduct of the suspect at the time of the incident will also be a reason for a store to presume probable cause. In Haltom v. Burner, probable cause was clear due to the individual’s conduct of attempting to exchange reported stolen items. The court used the evidence of the exact items stolen and matching items returned as evidence that a prudent person could determine as theft. This case extends the notion of concealment to the notion of “wrongful possession.”(cite) Additionally, in Bowman v. Indiana, the suspects quickly left the store in a nervous manner. The suspicious manner of departure, in addition to the concealment, are fully sufficient rationale to establish probable cause. Yet, merely examining merchandise within a store does not give rise to probable cause. In Cease v. Highland Village, the store wrongly claimed probable cause due to seeing the suspect pick up and examine an item while in the store. (cite) A store must clearly distinguish the conduct of a normal shopper from those of a thief.
The action of concealment has been commonly held as reasonable rationale for probable cause.

This due to the historic nature that “concealed property… is an intent to deprive the owner of any part of its value and that the person exerted unauthorized control over the property.” (cite) In Chestnet v. K-Mart Corp., the court held for probable cause to be deemed reasonable when an employee notices a suspect concealing a piece of merchandise on their person and attempts to leave the store. In Duvall v. Kroger Co, the court further extends the weight of concealment to be sufficient alone to presume probable. Even if the suspect does not go beyond the point of purchase. While the notion of concealment is commonly been held valid for probable cause, the action of concealment must be free from all other creditable alternative reasoning. When a suspect has a conclusive alternative reason for concealment, this action cannot alone be deemed proper probable cause. In Street v. Shoe Carnival, the store witnessed the suspect conceal socks on her person. When analyzing the incident as a whole, a reasonable person would’ve deemed that the conceal was due to helping her young child out and not for the purpose of theft. In Sutherline v. Lazarus, the court ruled that concealment of a blouse while still remaining in the store and entering the changing room is an action cannot be reasonably presumed as theft. (cite) Courts when allowing for alternative reasons, need to be persuaded by the

suspect as to why concealment had occurred. Though this notion of alternative reasoning is one that courts use to determine whether concealment can be probable cause, the alternative reasoning needs to be one of factual evidence or proof that diminishes an individual to believe that theft was occurring.   
The court will likely find that Stallmart store had probable cause to detain Mr.

White. Like in Bowman, White had passed the point of purchase. Though in Street, Sutherline, and Duvall the courts extended the point for probable cause past place of purchase to the last rack of merchandise. The case at hand does not share similar fact patterns. When examining Stallmart’s floor plan there is not merchandise past the registers only a public nail salon and restroom. Due to these factual difference, Stallmart’s case leans more towards the fact patterns presented in Bowman. As mention above, Chestnet and Duvall laid out the general rule of concealment. Though different in context, it could be reasonably presumed and later determined that White concealed smaller objects underneath the Xbox 1. White’s actions of panic, and nervousness while trying to leave the store added to reasonably presume probable cause of theft, similar to Bowman. In contrast, White did not have a creditable and or clear alternative reason for his suspicious behavior. As mention above in Street and Sutherline providing a creditable alternation reason for theft like actions does not fulfill the reasonable person standard for probable. White only stating “I just need to go” is not alternative reasons a prudent person would deem creditable. Unlike Cease, White in the eyes of the store did not demonstrate nominal shopping behavior. White was “walking extremely fast, broke past the registers, did not

acknowledge commends to stop, and was acting very flustered and frantic.”
The court will likely find that Stallmart did have probable cause to detain White in fear of shoplifting. The court will likely find that Stallmart fulled the standard of what a reasonable or prudent person would believe is occurring. Because the evidence supports the existing common law for determining sufficient probable cause, Mr. White likely has no claim against arguing that probably did not exist.