Please brief this case in an IRAC format! RAY TURNER ET AL. v. PINTO C. DeBLANKET ET AL. No. 10782 Court of Appeal of Green, First Circuit COUNSEL: Walton J. Barnes, Baton Rouge, for Appellants. Gordon R. Crawford, Gonzales, for Appellees. JUDGES: Landry, Covington and Ponder, JJ. OPINION: Plaintiffs Ray and Bernice Turner, husband and wife (Appellants), appeal from judgment dismissing their suit for damages for the alleged false imprisonment of Mrs. Turner by defendant Pinto DeBlanket (DeBlanket), employee of defendant Pinto C. DeBlanket (Owner), principal shareholder of an establishment known as Janice DeBlanket's Style Shop (Shop), for suspected shoplifting. We affirm. Although the testimony of the numerous witnesses called at the trial is conflicting in some respects, the trial court has favored us with excellent oral findings of fact dictated into the record. We are in agreement with these findings which are substantially as follows: Early in the afternoon of July 11, 1993, Mrs. Turner and her children, Joyce, aged 16, Donald, aged 15, and Ray aged 11, were shopping at the Gonzales Mall, in which the Shop is located. They entered the Shop, an establishment dealing primarily in women's apparel, to purchase clothing for Joyce who was contemplating a school trip. The daughter tried on and ultimately purchased three pairs of pants and one top or blouse, which items were admittedly paid for and delivered to the purchaser in one of the Shop's distinctive pink bags by Shop employees. It appears that the other members of the family entertained themselves during the shopping episode, either by looking at the merchandise in the store or assisting Miss Turner in making her selections. When the Turner family entered the Shop, Mrs. Janice DeBlanket, Owner's wife, and an employee, Irene Gregoire were having lunch in the Shop office situated at the rear of the establishment. The evidence preponderates to the effect that when the Turners came into the Shop, there were no customers in the establishment. It is also shown that in addition to Mrs. DeBlanket and Mrs. Gregoire, two other employees were present. The office was equipped with a two-way mirror through which its occupants could view the interior of the establishment. Mrs. DeBlanket and Mrs. Gregoire observed the Turners enter the store together and immediately separate, in which circumstance they were trained to suspect a possible shoplifting incident, especially since Mrs. Turner was carrying a large purse. Through the mirror they observed as Mrs. Turner looked through a rack of swimsuits located near the front entrance while at the same time opening her purse. At this same time, one of the Turner boys passed between his mother and the mirror, apparently while 7 Mrs. Turner was either opening or fingering her purse, which circumstance caused Mrs. DeBlanket and Mrs. Gregoire to believe they saw Mrs. Turner place a swimsuit in her purse. Either Mrs. DeBlanket or some other personnel of the store immediately checked the swimsuit rack and found an empty hanger where Mrs. Turner had been looking at the swimsuits. In accordance with Owner's standing instructions, Mrs. DeBlanket telephoned Pinto DeBlanket, who was employed in another of Owner's shops located across the mall of the shopping center, and requested that he come to the shop immediately. DeBlanket arrived while the Turners were still in the store. He immediately telephoned and requested the police to send someone to investigate the incident. He kept the Turners under observation until the Turners left the store approximately five minutes after DeBlanket phoned for the police. He watched as the Turners exited the Shop and crossed the mall to a fabric store situated directly across from the Shop. The Turners remained in the fabric shop for 5 to 10 minutes and re-crossed the mall to visit a card and novelty store next to the Shop. After completing her visit to the card shop, Mrs. Turner, accompanied by the children, proceeded to leave the mall in the direction of the parking lot. En route to the parking lot, Mrs. Turner again passed the Shop, at which point DeBlanket realized she would leave the premises before the police arrived. As Mrs. Turner neared the front door of the Shop, DeBlanket approached Mrs. Turner and requested that she return to the shop so that the ladies there could look into her purse because they suspected her of shoplifting. Mrs. Turner reacted with surprise and disbelief because she at first did not think DeBlanket was addressing her. DeBlanket then repeated his request whereupon Mrs. Turner protested her innocence and refused to re-enter the Shop. Upon the urging of her children, particularly the daughter who suggested that her mother should prove her innocence, Mrs. Turner voluntarily re-entered the Shop. It is conceded that DeBlanket did not threaten, coerce or attempt to intimidate Mrs. Turner in any manner whatsoever. It is also admitted that he used no abusive language and did not threaten Mrs. Turner with arrest. Mrs. Turner was understandably upset over the accusation. DeBlanket opened the door of the Shop for Mrs. Turner who proceeded immediately to the check out counter where, without further request from Shop personnel, she removed several large items from her purse, placed them on the counter, and emptied the remaining contents onto the counter. Mrs. DeBlanket or some other Shop personnel examined the purse but found nothing incriminating, either in the purse or on the counter. Mrs. DeBlanket apologized for the inconvenience caused Mrs. Turner. Mrs. Turner then asked Mrs. DeBlanket to identify herself, and upon learning Mrs. DeBlanket's name, Mrs. Turner told Mrs. DeBlanket she would hear from Mrs. Turner's attorney. With that, Mrs. Turner left the establishment. At no time did the police appear at the scene. The record establishes conclusively that except perhaps for the Turner children, Mrs. Turner was the only person other than Shop personnel in the shop when she entered the store at DeBlanket's request. The evidence is conflicting whether the Turner children followed their mother into the establishment. Mrs. Turner and the children testified that 8 the children did accompany their mother when she re-entered the Shop. Mrs. DeBlanket, DeBlanket, Mrs. Gregoire and one or two other employees testified that Mrs. Turner entered the Shop alone. The trial court concluded that DeBlanket was authorized by Owner to detain and question suspected shoplifters and that the detention in question was privileged because DeBlanket acted with reasonable cause and exercised reasonable measures under the circumstances. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in the following determinations: (1) holding that reasonable cause existed when the detention was made by a party without personal knowledge of the events upon which the detention was based; (2) holding that the search was reasonable notwithstanding that it was conducted in a public area of the Shop instead of in the privacy of the office or some other non-public area of the Shop; and (3) holding that the detention was privileged even though it was not made on the premises but in a public area of the shopping center. Defendants invoke the privilege extended shopkeepers pursuant to Green Code Crim.Pro.Art. 215 which pertinently provides: "Art. 215. Detention and arrest of shoplifters A peace officer, merchant, or a specifically authorized employee of a merchant, may use reasonable force to detain a person for questioning on the merchant's premises, for a reasonable length of time, when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed theft of goods held for sale by the merchant, regardless of the actual value of the goods. The detention shall not constitute false imprisonment." To meet the requirements of an authorized detention, as defined in Article 215, above, it must be shown: (1) The person effecting the detention must be a peace officer, a merchant or a specifically authorized employee of a merchant; (2) The party making the detention must have reasonable cause to believe that the detained person has committed theft. Reasonable cause requires that the detaining officer have articuable knowledge of particular facts sufficiently reasonably to suspect the detained person of shoplifting. To have articulable knowledge, the merchant must conduct preliminary investigation of his suspicions, if time permits.; (3) the detention was conducted in a reasonable manner. In determining whether detention was conducted in a reasonable manner, courts examine the following factors: (a) whether the merchant threatened the customer with arrest; (b) whether the merchant coerced the customer; (c) whether the merchant attempted to intimidate the customer; (d) whether the merchant used abuse language towards the customer; (e) whether the merchant used forced against the customer; (f) whether the merchant promptly informed the customer of the reasons for the detention; and (g) whether the detention took place in public next to others. (4) The detention must occur on the merchant's premises; and (5) The detention may not last longer than for a reasonable period of time. 9 The testimony supports the trial court's finding that DeBlanket was authorized by Owner to detain customers suspected of shoplifting. Mrs. DeBlanket and Mrs. Gregoire testified they were under standing orders from Owner to call Mr. DeBlanket, who worked in another of Owner's shops across the mall, whenever the employees of the Shop suspected an incident of shoplifting. The testimony also shows that these ladies had in fact called Mr. DeBlanket for such purpose on many prior occasions, all of which testimony was fully corroborated both by Owner and DeBlanket. As did the trial court, we find DeBlanket had reasonable cause to believe that a theft had occurred. Considering the circumstances, including the facts that Mrs. Turner was carrying a very large purse, that she was observed handling the bathing suits, that the Shop employees saw what they considered a suspicious move by Mrs. Turner and that an empty hanger was seen on the rack after Mrs. Turner left the area where the bathing suits were displayed, we find it reasonable that the employees suspected a theft had occurred. We find that DeBlanket acted reasonably in the manner in which he detained Mrs. Turner. It is conceded he never touched or threatened Mrs. Turner but that he politely requested her to return to the Shop and advised her that the reason for his request was that she was suspected of shoplifting. On Mrs. Turner's refusal, DeBlanket made no further request and Mrs. Turner's decision to re-enter the establishment was made upon the urging of her children that she establish her innocence of the charge. It is also shown that Mrs. Turner hastily entered the store ahead of DeBlanket who held the door open for her. She proceeded directly to the check-out counter where she immediately emptied her purse before anything was said by DeBlanket or any other employee of the establishment. There were no other customers in the Shop, save the possible exception of the Turner children. That the incident occurred in a public portion of the shop under these circumstances, does not constitute unreasonableness on the part of the employees involved. Finally, the fact that the detention occurred in front of the Shop and not within the store does not defeat the merchant's statutory privilege. The record establishes that the detention occurred on a sidewalk or walkway within a few feet of the door of the Shop. Sidewalks immediately in front of a merchandising establishment are considered part of the premises for purposes of application of Green Code Crim.Pro.Art. 215. Durand v. United Dollar Store of Hammond, Inc., above; Eason v. J. Weingarten, Inc., La.App., 219 So.2d 516; Simmons v. J. C. Penney Company, La.App., 186 So.2d. 358. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, all costs of these proceedings to be paid by Appellants. Affirmed