Congratulations to Shareholder James Milstone, Associate Justin Wyss, and Shareholder Deborah Kapitan on an Appellate Win in Indiana!
By: Kopka Pinkus Dolin
Congratulations to Shareholder James Milstone, Associate Justin Wyss, and Shareholder Deborah Kapitan on an Appellate Win in Indiana!
About the Case:
KPD represented a large retail store located in Hammond, IN, along with a security company the retailer contracted with to perform loss prevention services. In July 2022, one of the store’s loss prevention officers (“LPO”) noticed a missing knife from its location shortly after the store had opened, shortly after he had completed an inventory check. The knife was one of the most-stolen types of items in the store. After the inventory check revealed that no knife of this type had been purchased that day, the LPO reviewed security camera footage and found that the then-unknown Plaintiff was the only individual who had handled the knife during the relevant time period and had placed it in his basket. However, after going out of view of the cameras, the knife was no longer in the Plaintiff’s basket and the LPO was unable to locate the knife that day.
After a few days, the knife’s packaging was found by another store employee. A week after the knife went missing, the Plaintiff returned to the store, wearing the same clothes. The store’s LPO recognized the plaintiff from the videos and approached him asking to speak with him. Plaintiff agreed, and followed the LPO to their office for brief questioning. Plaintiff denied stealing the knife, and was allowed to leave after less than 15 minutes without incident.
One month later, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the store, the security company, and the LPO, alleging claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
Plaintiff obtained an attorney who conducted an array of discovery in an effort to support the Plaintiff’s claims. After discovery was completed, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that liability could not attach under Indiana’s Shoplifting Detention Act, Ind. Code § 35-33-6-2 et seq., which allows store owners and their representatives to briefly detain individuals who they reasonably suspect of shoplifting. The attorneys at KPD were able to successfully demonstrate that: (1) the defendants had probable case to believe a theft had occurred; (2) there was probable cause to believe a specific individual had committed the theft; and (3) that the Plaintiff’s detention was conducted in a reasonable manner.
After hearing oral arguments, the trial court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects. Plaintiff immediately appealed the ruling, identifying a range of alleged defects with the evidence supporting the probable cause determination, and the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s detention. Plaintiff argued that these issues, as well as the reasonable inferences, should have precluded summary judgment from being entered against him.
In a published decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects. Plaintiff sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court for the case, raising many of the same arguments as before. The attorneys at KPD were able to successfully argue that the decision did not conflict with any prior decisions of either the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Supreme Court, or the Indiana Court of Appeals. Transfer was denied, bringing the case to a close.
