Dandy Department Stores, Inc. accused Sassy Silva of shoplifting. Silva was tried in criminal court for theft charges stemming from this incident and was found not guilty. After his acquittal, Silva brought a civil action against Dandy, alleging false imprisonment. The trial court found as a matter of law that the shopkeeper's privilege barred liability for false imprisonment and directed a verdict in favor of Dandy. Silva contends the trial court erred in its findings with respect to the time and manner of detention, arguing both issues should have been presented to a jury as questions of fact. Silva was a host at a restaurant and testified that, while working at his place of employment, he received three shirts as a gift from a regular patron who has since returned to her native country and was not available to testify. He explained that, because this customer knew that he and his roommate liked to dress alike, two of the three shirts were identical. Silva further testified he had his picture taken with the gift-giver and the shirts at the restaurant where he worked. This picture was shown to the jury. On June 12, 2007, Silva went to the Mega Mall, where one of his friends was opening a new comic book shop. Silva also took the three shirts, because he and his roommate had decided to exchange them. After touring the new shop, Silva went to his car, retrieved the three shirts, and went to Dandy. Silva testified the customer who had given him the shirts had also given him the receipt with the gift, in case he wanted to exchange them. Silva first attempted to return the shirts at the perfume counter, but was told he needed to exchange them at another department. While at the perfume counter, Silva purchased a small bottle of cologne; the receipt indicated this purchase was made at 2:12 p.m. Silva stated that after purchasing the cologne, he placed the three shirts into the Dandy shopping bag along with the cologne. At 2:43 p.m., Silva tried on and subsequently purchased a Polo Ralph Lauren shirt, making him eligible to purchase a Polo Ralph Lauren travel bag being used as a promotional item. Another receipt indicated he purchased this travel bag at 2:46 p.m. Silva testified he began to experience soreness in his knee and asked directions to the water fountain so he could take some medicine. According to Silva, he was stopped by a Dandy security guard, William Wood, while Silva was on his way to the water fountain. Wood was an off-duty police officer who was in uniform, with his "gun on [his] hip." Silva testified that Wood accused him of theft, placed him on the floor and handcuffed him. Silva said the officer emptied Silva's shopping bag onto the floor. Silva told the officer he had receipts for the items, including the three shirts. 6 When the receipt for the shirts was not found in the bag, Silva said he begged the officer to go outside and check his car for the receipt. The officer instead took Silva, while handcuffed, up the escalator to an empty office. Silva said there were a lot of people watching. He also testified that no one asked him for an explanation and that, while in the office, Wood and an unidentified woman made fun of him. He remained in handcuffs during the duration of his wait. He stated that, when the city police arrived to take him into custody, Wood again placed him on the floor with his knee in his back, and exchanged handcuffs with the city police. Silva said there were onlookers lined up to watch when he was escorted back downstairs and taken to the waiting police car. Silva later produced a receipt for three shirts purchased at Dandy on June 2, 2007. All three shirts were the same style and price as the three Silva was accused of stealing. However, two of the bar codes did not match exactly those notated on Dandy's internal report about the incident. Silva's possible explanations of these discrepancies between bar codes included a difference in sizes (delineated by the final digits of the bar code numbers), a sales clerk scanning one item multiple times instead of scanning the individual tags on similar items, and a misidentification of the merchandise. As his point of error, Silva contends there was evidence to support a finding of false imprisonment and thus that the decision should have been given to a jury. To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law. Dandy contends that the third element is missing in this case. Dandy bases this contention on the shopkeeper's privilege, which grants an employee the authority of law to detain a customer to investigate the ownership of property, so long as (1) the employee has a belief the customer has stolen or is attempting to steal store merchandise, (2) the detention was for a reasonable amount of time, and (3) the detention was conducted in a reasonable manner. Here, the first component, reasonable suspicion, is met since Silva was holding a bag of store merchandise for which he was not able to produce a receipt. The second component of the shopkeeper's privilege is whether the detention was for a reasonable amount of time. Silva testified he did not personally know the length of time he was detained by Dandy. However, the last receipt from Dandy for a purchase made by Silva was marked 2:46 p.m. Wood testified that he first noticed Silva around 2:30 or 2:45 p.m. He observed Silva for about fifteen minutes until he went into a dressing room for five or six minutes. Shortly after emerging from the dressing room, Silva was stopped by Wood and taken upstairs. The police report denotes the patrol officers left the scene at 4:23 p.m. to transport Silva to jail. Dandy contends the evidence shows Silva was detained for approximately one hour, perhaps a little longer. Silva agrees the detention lasted an hour or so. Dandy contends that, even if the detention was longer than an hour, there was no evidence this was an unreasonable amount of time for Wood to question Silva and the store employees, and to talk with officers at the police department and prosecutors at the district attorney's office. This court has previously held that detaining an accused shoplifter for ten to fifteen minutes is not unreasonable as a matter of law. Resendez v. EZ-Shop, 235 SDOC 1084 (2007). The court in Resendez, however, made its holding "[w]ithout deciding the outer parameters of a permissible period of time." Id. Here, both sides agree the detention was for at least an hour. 7 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say as a matter of law that the hour for which Silva was detained for an unreasonable length of time. Thus, the second element of the shopkeeper's privilege is met. The third component of the shopkeeper's privilege is whether the detention was performed in a reasonable manner. Again, Dandy contends there was no evidence the detention was not reasonable. Wood testified that he followed standard store protocol in placing Silva in handcuffs, searching his belongings to ascertain whether any merchandise was stolen, and escorting him upstairs to an empty office. Similarly, Silva testified that Wood accused him of theft and placed him on the floor and handcuffed him. Silva said the officer emptied Silva's shopping bag onto the floor. Silva testified people were around him when he was taken upstairs in handcuffs and when he was later escorted to the police car. He further stated Wood and an unnamed woman made fun of him while he was being detained upstairs. Silva stated that, when the city police came to take him into custody, Wood again placed him on the floor with his knee in his back and exchanged handcuffs with the city police. He further testified that he asked Wood many times to check his car for the receipt, but these requests were ignored and that, during the entire time he was detained, no one asked him for any explanation. Assuming there was reasonable belief that the detention was for a proper purpose and for a reasonable time, the privilege still may not attach if the merchant does not detain in a reasonable manner. As with the question of reasonable time, the issue of reasonableness of the detention is one for the court to decide as a matter of law where there is no conflict in the evidence as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff was held. Dylan & Sons Stores, Co. v. Carrington, 198 SDOC 201, 205 (1999). Here, although there were slight differences in testimony between Silva and Wood, both parties agree that Silva was placed in handcuffs. Wood did not deny in his testimony that Silva was placed on the ground or that the physical detention occurred in front of shoppers, instead of in a private area, until Silva was finally escorted to an empty office. In the circumstances of a retail establishment and an accusation of shoplifting, and in an absence of threat of physical violence by the accused, Wood's tactics were extreme. It is patently unreasonable for a store employee to handcuff and physically manage an accused shoplifter, and it is further unreasonable to do so in front of a crowd of fellow shoppers and to detain the accused in uncomfortable conditions. The trial court in this case directed a verdict for Dandy on the false imprisonment counts. In so doing, it necessarily found as a matter of law that there was reasonable cause, and that the seizure and detention were undertaken for a reasonable amount of time and in a reasonable manner. We hold that the court erred in its findings with respect to the reasonable manner of detention. This requires reversal and retrial. At the new trial evidence on the manner of detention should be measured against the principles set forth in this opinion. What are the key facts in the case?