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

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

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