Gustafson v. Payless
Encyclopedia
Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores was a 1974 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court
regarding an alleged case of shoplifting
. The case deals mainly with the issues of malice
and probable cause
from a legal standpoint.
) a California resident and her husband, was visiting relatives in Salem, Oregon
, when Gustafson and her mother-in-law visited the local Payless Drug Store (company later acquired by Rite Aid
). Gustafson inadvertently left the store without paying for a pack of cigarettes, when a security officer then asked Gustafson to purchase the cigarettes. Gustafson said she apologized for her mistake and stated that she had been distracted had forgotten to pay. Upon re-entering the store Gustafson was arrested for shoplifting. The security officer notified the police, and the Gustafson was escorted to the police station. Consequently, she sued the store, claiming probable cause had not been established. The jury found in favor of Gustafson, and awarded $36,000 in damages, including $25,000 punitive
, and Payless appealed.
defined the requirements for the establishment of probable cause. Probable cause exists if the person initiating the action adheres to the following:
Payless argued that the court erred in its decision, claiming probable cause had been established. Justice Denecke asserted that it is the duty of the court, not the jury
, to determine probable cause. Furthermore, Denecke noted that the facts agreed upon by the court favored the defendant.
Thus the ruling provided the greatest possible merit to the defendant’s claims and still found Payless had no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. Specifically, when presenting their version of the facts, the defendant contradicted Mrs. Gustafson’s statement in three particular areas.
To these three claims, the court responded that no attempt was made to conceal the cigarettes. Thus, even if it was supposed that the defendant was correct in its other two contradictions to the facts, probable cause had still not been established for the arrest. The plaintiff never behaved in a suspicious manner which would suggest shoplifting, or which implied guilt or provided probable cause.
Mrs. Gustafson kept the merchandise in plain view. She attempted to pay for the item. She waited for an extended period outside the store after exiting. She purchased additional items. None of this behavior is consistent with that of a shoplifter, and the security guard was aware of Gustafson's conduct.
Payless also contended that it had probable cause because it acted upon the advice of the deputy district attorney
, and that the action against the plaintiff was brought as a result of the police officer and the deputy district attorney, as opposed to Payless itself although the deputy district attorney's involvement began after the arrest, and was predicated by the facts provided by Payless. These facts left out a number of relevant points. In failing to supply all the relevant details, Payless became instrumental in “putting the law in force,” thus voiding the claim of probable cause through the advice of the deputy district attorney.
Denecke finally noted that it had been consistently held that the jury may make a finding of malice based upon a lack of probable cause. Given that probable cause was not established, sufficient evidence of malice was found upon the part of the defendant to enable the jury to find for the plaintiff.
Oregon Supreme Court
The Oregon Supreme Court is the highest state court in the U.S. state of Oregon. The only court that may reverse or modify a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. The OSC holds court at the Oregon Supreme Court Building in Salem, Oregon, near the capitol...
regarding an alleged case of shoplifting
Shoplifting
Shoplifting is theft of goods from a retail establishment. It is one of the most common property crimes dealt with by police and courts....
. The case deals mainly with the issues of malice
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being...
and probable cause
Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
from a legal standpoint.
Facts
Gustafson (plaintiffPlaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
) a California resident and her husband, was visiting relatives in Salem, Oregon
Salem, Oregon
Salem is the capital of the U.S. state of Oregon, and the county seat of Marion County. It is located in the center of the Willamette Valley alongside the Willamette River, which runs north through the city. The river forms the boundary between Marion and Polk counties, and the city neighborhood...
, when Gustafson and her mother-in-law visited the local Payless Drug Store (company later acquired by Rite Aid
Rite Aid
Rite Aid is a drugstore chain in the United States and a Fortune 500 company headquartered in East Pennsboro Township, Pennsylvania, near Camp Hill. Rite Aid is the largest drugstore chain on the East Coast and the third largest drugstore chain in the U.S....
). Gustafson inadvertently left the store without paying for a pack of cigarettes, when a security officer then asked Gustafson to purchase the cigarettes. Gustafson said she apologized for her mistake and stated that she had been distracted had forgotten to pay. Upon re-entering the store Gustafson was arrested for shoplifting. The security officer notified the police, and the Gustafson was escorted to the police station. Consequently, she sued the store, claiming probable cause had not been established. The jury found in favor of Gustafson, and awarded $36,000 in damages, including $25,000 punitive
Punitive damages
Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit...
, and Payless appealed.
Question
Was the lack of probable cause sufficient evidence of malice upon the part of the defendant to enable the jury to find for the plaintiff?Decision
In reciting the opinion of the court, Justice DeneckeArno H. Denecke
Arno H. Denecke was an American jurist born in Illinois. He served on the Oregon Supreme Court from 1963 to 1982, and as the 37th Chief Justice of the court from 1976 until leaving the bench. The World War II veteran retired from the United States Army at the rank of colonel in 1974.-Early...
defined the requirements for the establishment of probable cause. Probable cause exists if the person initiating the action adheres to the following:
- reasonable belief that the person accused has acted or failed to act in a particular manner,
- belief that such acts or omissions constitute at common lawCommon lawCommon law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
or under an existing statute the offense charged against the accused.
Payless argued that the court erred in its decision, claiming probable cause had been established. Justice Denecke asserted that it is the duty of the court, not the jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
, to determine probable cause. Furthermore, Denecke noted that the facts agreed upon by the court favored the defendant.
Thus the ruling provided the greatest possible merit to the defendant’s claims and still found Payless had no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. Specifically, when presenting their version of the facts, the defendant contradicted Mrs. Gustafson’s statement in three particular areas.
- The security guard claimed the plaintiff had exited the store with the cigarettes passing a checkout stand. (This indicates shoplifting, as it implies that the plaintiff knowingly exited the store without paying for the item.)
- The security guard claimed the cigarettes had been placed on the far left of the vehicle, indicating an effort to conceal the merchandise.
- Finally, the security guard claimed the plaintiff, when confronted about the cigarettes, stated that she forgot to pay, and that no apologies were made as claimed by Mrs. Gustafson.
To these three claims, the court responded that no attempt was made to conceal the cigarettes. Thus, even if it was supposed that the defendant was correct in its other two contradictions to the facts, probable cause had still not been established for the arrest. The plaintiff never behaved in a suspicious manner which would suggest shoplifting, or which implied guilt or provided probable cause.
Mrs. Gustafson kept the merchandise in plain view. She attempted to pay for the item. She waited for an extended period outside the store after exiting. She purchased additional items. None of this behavior is consistent with that of a shoplifter, and the security guard was aware of Gustafson's conduct.
Payless also contended that it had probable cause because it acted upon the advice of the deputy district attorney
District attorney
In many jurisdictions in the United States, a District Attorney is an elected or appointed government official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses. The district attorney is the highest officeholder in the jurisdiction's legal department and supervises a staff of...
, and that the action against the plaintiff was brought as a result of the police officer and the deputy district attorney, as opposed to Payless itself although the deputy district attorney's involvement began after the arrest, and was predicated by the facts provided by Payless. These facts left out a number of relevant points. In failing to supply all the relevant details, Payless became instrumental in “putting the law in force,” thus voiding the claim of probable cause through the advice of the deputy district attorney.
Denecke finally noted that it had been consistently held that the jury may make a finding of malice based upon a lack of probable cause. Given that probable cause was not established, sufficient evidence of malice was found upon the part of the defendant to enable the jury to find for the plaintiff.