Preliminary Provisions

ORS 131.655
Detention and interrogation of persons suspected of theft committed in a store or unlawful operation of audiovisual device in a motion picture theater

  • probable cause

(1)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may be detained in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time by:

(a)

A merchant or merchant’s employee who has probable cause for believing that the person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment; or

(b)

The owner or lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner or lessee who has probable cause to believe that the person has violated ORS 164.882 (Unlawful operation of an audiovisual device).

(2)

Probable cause is a defense to any civil or criminal action based on detention and interrogation that a person brings against:

(a)

A merchant or merchant’s employee who has detained the person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time based on probable cause for believing that the person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment; or

(b)

The owner or lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner or lessee who has detained the person based on probable cause for believing that the person has violated ORS 164.882 (Unlawful operation of an audiovisual device). [Formerly 133.037; 2005 c.459 §2]
(Prevention by Public Officers)

See also annotations under ORS 133.037 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff closely resembled suspected shoplifter and was wearing similar clothing but was found in opposite direction from where actual shoplifters fled and was not wearing baseball cap or carrying new tennis shoes, store employees did not have probable cause to stop and detain plaintiff. Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc., 51 Or App 715, 626 P2d 953 (1981), aff’d 291 Or 828, 637 P2d 1280 (1981)

In plaintiff’s action for malicious prosecution and battery arising out of plaintiff’s suspected shoplifting from defendant’s store, trial court erred in refusing to instruct jury that this section was defense to plaintiff’s battery claim. Dow v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 84 Or App 664, 734 P2d 1387 (1987)

When security personnel interviewed defendant for ten minutes, then detained defendant for additional hour before contacting police, the additional detention was unreasonable under this section. State v. Adams, 86 Or App 139, 738 P2d 988 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

55 OLR 285-290 (1976)

Source

Last accessed
May 26, 2023

REMOVE ADS