## Facts

- Marion Bonkowski shopped at Arlan’s Department Store, made purchases, and had receipts.
- After she left the sales area and was near the parking lot, Earl Reinhardt, a uniformed security officer working for Arlan’s, stopped her.
- Reinhardt acted on a report from another store employee that a woman matching Bonkowski’s description placed three pieces of costume jewelry into her purse without paying.
- Reinhardt told Bonkowski she was reported to have put jewelry in her purse without paying and requested that she return and/or show the contents of her purse.
- Bonkowski complied, emptied her purse, and produced receipts; Reinhardt then permitted her to leave.
- The encounter was brief; she was not handcuffed, taken to a police station, or booked.
- Bonkowski sued Arlan’s and Reinhardt for false arrest/false imprisonment and slander; a jury awarded $43,750.

## Issues

1. Whether a merchant has a common-law privilege to detain a person for a reasonable investigation when the merchant reasonably believes the person unlawfully took goods, as a defense to false imprisonment/false arrest.
2. Whether the security officer’s stop and inspection request fell within that privilege on these facts, and whether the jury was properly instructed on the privilege.
3. How privilege and reasonableness affect liability for slander based on an accusation of theft made during an investigation.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that merchants have a common-law privilege to detain suspected shoplifters for reasonable investigation when supported by reasonable belief.
- The Court concluded the trial court erred in denying defendants’ post-trial relief because the case was not submitted to the jury under proper legal instructions concerning the privilege.
- The Court reversed and remanded for a new trial so the claims could be assessed under correct standards governing the merchant’s detention privilege.
- The Court’s analysis treated the brief, on-the-spot inquiry based on an employee report as materially supporting application of the privilege, subject to reasonableness limits.

## Legal Principles

- False arrest is treated as a form of false imprisonment for purposes of common-law analysis.
- A merchant is privileged to detain a person for a reasonable investigation if the merchant has reasonable grounds to believe the person unlawfully took store property.
- The privilege is qualified: both the grounds for suspicion and the scope, manner, and duration of the detention/investigation must be reasonable.
- When privilege is supported by the record, the jury must be instructed on it; failure to do so can require a new trial.
- A store may be responsible for a security officer’s torts when apprehending suspected shoplifters is within the officer’s assigned duties and performed under store direction or control.
- Communications accusing a customer of theft may support defamation liability unless protected by a conditional privilege; good faith and proper occasion are relevant to privilege.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court recognized a qualified shopkeeper’s privilege allowing brief detention for reasonable investigation based on reasonable suspicion of theft, reversed the plaintiff’s verdict, and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed to evaluate the defendants’ conduct under that privilege.


Bonkowski v. Arlan's Dep't Store, 383 Mich. 90, 174 N.W.2d 765 (1970)