MEMORANDUM OF LAW
To:Supervising AttorneyFrom:Sandra Black, ParalegalDate:June 22, 2010Case:Duran v. ShoptownRe:False ImprisonmentStatement of AssignmentI have been assigned the task of answering the legal question if there is a possibility that Mrs.Duran will prevail in a false imprisonment claim in response to shoplifting allegation made bythe store’s security guard.IssueUnder Statutory Law
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3424, Criminal Restraint
. (a) Criminal restraint isknowingly and without legal authority restraining another person so as to interfere substantiallywith such person's liberty. (b) This section shall not apply to acts done in the performance of duty by any law enforcement officer of the state of Kansas or any political subdivision thereof.(c) Any merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, who has probable cause to believe that a person has actual possession of and has wrongfully taken, or is about to wrongfully takemerchandise from a mercantile establishment, may detain such person on the premises or in theimmediate vicinity thereof, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of investigating the circumstances of such possession. Such reasonable detention shallnot constitute an arrest nor criminal restraint.Brief Answer Qualification. No. In the case of, Melia v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 18 Kan. App. 2d 5, 846 P.2d257 (1993), “Martin
filed suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages against
) upon allegations of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.The jury returned a verdict in favor of
, awarding compensatory damage of $20,200. Thetrial court additionally imposed punitive damages of $20,000.
appeals, contending thetrial court erred in not granting its motion for directed verdict. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.”Statement of FactsThe store’s security guard saw Janet Duran place a bottle of nail polish in her coat pocket as shewas shopping. Ms. Duran took the polish from her pocket and put the polish back. She attempted