A. Defendant Mark Schenkly detained Mr. Flynn in an unreasonable manner because he poked him in the back with a bat, called him names, and denied him access to water and to his phone. Defendant Mark Schenkly did not detain Mr. Flynn in a reasonable manner because he used unnecessary force and abusive methods to coerce Mr. Flynn’s detainment. A shopkeeper is never permitted to use force to detain to a suspect. Gortarez, 680 P. 2d at 814. The only exemption from this rule exists when the suspect is resisting the shopkeeper’s request to remain or the force is necessary for purposes of self efense.
Even in such a case, the force used by the shopkeeper must be reasonable under the circumstances and not calculated to inflict serious bodily harm. Id. at 815. This privilege is remarkably narrow in that the shopkeeper must be correct as to the facts that he believes grant him the privilege. Any mistake as to such facts will expose the shopkeeper to liability. Id. at 812. When the facts are not in dispute, the issue of reasonableness is one for the court to decide as a matter of law. Id. at 814.
This general rule is illustrated by decisions holding that a hopkeeper’s use of excessive or unnecessary force will result in a finding that the shopkeeper did not detain the suspect in a reasonable manner. In Gortarez, the shopkeeper, along with two other employees, approached the suspects in the parking lot as they were getting into their car. While there was some dispute as to the facts, one of the suspects testified that he saw one of the employees push the other suspect up against the car and search him.
Although the employee did not ask the suspect for the item he was suspected of stealing, nor tell the suspect what it was that he was looking for, the suspect did not resist. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the trial court erred in its finding of reasonable manner of detention. Id. at 815. In its reasoning, the Court pointed to the facts that there was no request for the suspect to remain, no inquiry was made as to whether the suspect possessed the vaporizer, the suspect did not resist or attempt to escape, and the nominal value of the item.
The Court noted that the evidence adduced likely would have supported a finding that the manner of detention was unreasonable as a matter of law, and held that at best, there was a question of fact. Id. at 815. Further, a shopkeeper cannot ssault or bully the suspect in order to effectuate detainment. Evidence that the shopkeeper denied the suspect access to basic necessities may also support a finding that the detainment was not carried out in a reasonable manner. For example, in the Koepnick case, the suspect was approached by store employees in an unlit area of the parking lot which led him to believe the two were trying to “hustle” him.
While one employee blocked the suspect’s path, the other grabbed his shopping bag, took the wrench from the bag, and waved it at him. Koepnick, 762 P. 2d at 617. The mistreatment continued when the employees pushed he suspect around and refused his requests to use the telephone and to get a drink of water. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of the shopkeeper’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of reasonableness of detention. Id. at 617. The present case is analogous to the Gortarez and Koepnick cases, where the suspects were approached in a threatening manner.
Defendant Mark Schenkly confronted Mr. Flynn while brandishing a baseball bat and call him demeaning names. Additionally, like in the Gortarez and Koepnick cases where the shopkeepers utilized unlawful force, Defendant Mark Schenkly repeatedly jabbed Mr. Flynn in the back with a baseball bat and threatened him, even though Mr. Flynn was complying with his demands. Lastly, almost identical to the shopkeeper in the Koepnick case who treated the suspect poorly by not allowing him to use the telephone or get a drink of water, the Defendant mistreated Mr. Flynn by not allowing him to use the restroom or to call his wife to inform her of his whereabouts.
For these reasons, the court should find that Mr. Flynn’s detainment was not brought about in a reasonable manner. B. Defendants failed to establish that Mr. Flynn was detained for a reasonable length of time because Mr. Flynn was cooperative throughout the entirety of his detainment. The Defendants detained Mr. Flynn for an unreasonable length of time because he was not released following Defendant Mark Schenkly’s investigation.
A shopkeeper may only detain a suspect for the time which is necessary to conduct a short investigation. Gortarez, 680 P. 2d at 811. In construing the reasonable time standard, courts consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the detainment, including the suspect’s willingness to cooperate. Kon, 563 P. 2d at 923. In the Kon case, the suspect argued that his one-hour confinement was too long. The court held that the length of the detainment was reasonable due to the suspect’s refusal to answer answer questions concerning the missing merchandise.
The court also noted that the detainment might have concluded more quickly if the suspect had cooperated. Id. at 923. Courts will also look for evidence to indicate that the shopkeeper accomplished the detainment in a “reasonable and a workmanlike manner. ” Id. at 923. In the Koepnick case, the shopkeeper detained the suspect for fifteen minutes to await the arrival of the police. Once the police arrived, the suspect spent additional period of time in the custody of the police. In total, the detainment went on for approximately forty-five minutes.
While the suspect acknowledged that the length of his detainment prior to the arrival of the police was reasonable and that during the additional period of detainment he was in the police officer’s custody, he asserted that he should have been released following the conclusion of the shopkeeper’s investigation. The court held that the shopkeeper was not legally responsible for the time that the suspect was detained after he was arrested by he police. Koepnick, 762 P. 2d at 618.
The court reasoned that the shopkeeper could not be subjected to liability for the additional period of detainment because the decision to continue his detention was solely within the discretion of the police. Id. at 617 The facts in the present case are unlike those in the Kon, where the defendant refused to answer the shopkeeper’s questions while being detained, Mr. Flynn did cooperate in Defendant Mark Schenkly’s investigation. Also, dissimilar to the Koepnick case, the Defendant never called the police.
Accordingly, the Defendants should be liable for the ntirety of Mr. Flynn’s forty-five minute detention. CONCLUSION In the case before this Court, Defendant Mark Schenkly did not have reasonable cause to detain Mr. Flynn. Also, the Defendant did not detain Mr. Flynn for the proper purposes. Finally, the Defendant did not effect the detainment in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. Therefore, Defendant Mark Schenkly is not able to assert the shopkeeper’s privilege as a defense to his unlawful detainment of Mr. Flynn. This Court should therefore find the Defendants liable for the false imprisonment of Mr. Flynn.