Research & Writing Memo

pupil ID 105228 5/30/2009 We puke probably show that Brett cracked Jane. Arrest is an broker of false imprisonment. Arrest means confinement against ones allow. An arrest back be affected done physical constraint as well as through whatsoeveroneal coercion (its analogous). When a re hug drugtion employee detains something of rate that a reasonable jockstrap would not leave with erupt, the jock has been coerced and hence arrested. In this case, be mystify Brett took Janes drag (something no reasonable person would leave behind), Jane was likely arrested. The elements of false imprisonment are intent to confine, arrest, and cognizance of confinement.In Moore v. City of Detroit, 252 Mich. App. 384, 652 N. W. 2d 688 (2002), the tribunal held that an causeion for false imprisonment can be maintained with aside alleging a false arrest involving government equity enforcement. The approach reasoned that the employee was not actually confined or untalkative for any sign ificant period of time which is required in firm a false imprisonment claim. The court stated that so far if the employee had been locked in some enclosure, the confinements were momentary and fleeting or too brief and accordingly insufficient to satisfy false imprisonment.An arrest must be against the forget of the person confined a admirer who voluntarily follows a enthronization company employee back into the introduce is not arrested. In Bruce v. Meijers Supermarkets INC. , 34 Mich. App. 352, 191 N. W. 2d 132 (1971), a node was shopping at Meijers in Lansing Michigan. customer places ii pairs of panties in her cart and continues shopping. node then places some(prenominal) pairs of panties on a counter other than where she found them. Customer checked out with the cashier. Customer leaves the store. Unidentified man approaches the customer.Unidentified man asks customer where she put the inexpert for panties which the man had seen in her cart while in the store. Cus tomer assume that the unidentified man was an employee of the store. Unidentified man repeatedly asked customer to soften to the store. Customer was feeling ill. Customer wanted to leave. Customer said her children would be coming home for lunch. Customer voluntarily opened her purse and her clothe to prove that she did not take the panties. Customer estimates that she had been questioned for approximately five minutes. Customer voluntarily follows the man back inside the store.Customer quickly finds the panties lying on the counter adjacent to the lingerie display. Customer leaves store without further ado. The court held that no arrest was made and false imprisonment cannot have occurred without an arrest. The court reasoned that nothing was being done to indicate that she was being interpreted into custody, or that she was being held for delivery to a peace officer to event a criminal charge. Given what the unidentified man observed (customer placing the panties in her cart) , entitled the unidentified man acting as an agent of the owner, the beneficial to question the customer.The customers voluntariness in following the man back into the store illustrates that her actions were carried out willingly & knowingly and shows no signs of manual seizure or coercion. in that locationfore the customer was not arrested. Like the customer in Bruce, Jane voluntarily followed the store clerk back into the store. However in our case, Jane had been designedly and knowingly coerced into her finding whereas the actions by the customer in Bruce were done willingly. For an arrest, there must be a manual seizure or its equivalent in some sort of personal coercion.Coercion means acting against the will of the customer. If there is no coercion, there is no arrest. The store clerk seized Janes tag (something of value), going Jane no choice but to follow. Unlike the case in Bruce, Janes actions were against her will and were therefore coerced. When a store employee de tains something of value to a patron and the item detained is something a reasonable person would not leave without, the patron has been detained. In Clarke v. K Mart Corporation, 197 Mich. App. 541, 495 N. W. d 820 (1992), a customer and her two small children were shopping at K Mart in majestic Rapids, Michigan. Customer purchased a set of bed sheets among other things. The cashier circumstantially rang up the sheets twice. demolish set sheets aside and voided the second transaction. Cashier move sheets into customers base. The cashier supervisor observed only the sheets being placed in the customers bag. Cashier supervisor did not notice the sheets being rung up. Cashier supervisor along with another co-supervisor approached customer.Customer claims the co-supervisor snatched the bag out of her hand. Co-supervisor alleges he took the bag out of the customers shopping cart. The supervisors confiscate $250 deserving of purchased goods and notify the customer that they will be performing a routine package check. Customer was detained for ten or fifteen minutes. Supervisors gave $10 to customer for her inconvenience. The court held that by confiscating the $250 worth of purchased goods the customer had been coerced into staying inside the store for 10 or 15 minutes and was therefore detained.The court reasoned that if a store owner, without any privilege, purposely prevents a customer from leaving by means of taking something of value from the customer and that customer reasonably remains in the store exclusively for the valuables, than that customer has been confined and therefore detained. Similar to our case at hand, both Jane as well as the customer in Clarke had been confined through the detainment of personal valuables. In Clarke, the detainment of expensive bed sheets ($250) proved to be lavish coercion to satisfy a confinement.In our case however, it was Janes dog that had been detained. Now, although it may be impossible to value the dog at an y specific dollar amount, any patron willing to purchase a dog will most likely view the purchase as an investment rather than a burden. On the other hand, the defense will make out that owning a dog may be more of a financial obligation than asset because maintaining a dog is expensive and by detaining the dog, Jane would be separate off financially. The defense may have a valid argument, so far a dog is not an inanimate object it is a pet.Accordingly, if a customer wont leave without their bed sheets as in Clarke, than certainly a customer will not leave without there pet. Any reasonable patron understands that a dog is a musical accompaniment creature and has feelings just as humans do. Any reasonable dog owner can understand the impact a pet can have on a persons life and thus love their pet as if it were their own child. Obviously, it would be unconscionable to forecast that a reasonable person would leave their dog behind they would act as Jane did.Janes decision to go back into the store was understandably against her will and was therefore coerced. An arrest can be affected each through physical constraint or personal coercion that is the equivalent of physical constraint. In Tumbarella v. Kroger Co. , 85 Mich. App. 482, 271 N. W. 2d 284 (1978), two police officers approached a customer who was also an employee for the store. The security officers asked customer where the money was. Customer indicated that she did not know what they were talking about. Officers then made menacing gestures toward the customer.Customer entangle as if she was taken in custody. The officers threatened the customer with prosecution and jail. Customer felt restricted in her freedom both expressly and impliedly. The court held that the customer may seek nominal damages even if the officers had probable cause to believe the customer stole money from the store. The court reasoned that even if a shopkeeper suspects a person of taking without permission, the customers sh oplifting does not give the shopkeeper the absolute privilege to detain the suspected shoplifter.