This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P went to D's store carrying her 'eco-friendly canvas shopping tote,' a large bag that is conspicuous when used. There were no posted signs stating that shopping totes were not allowed, and she was not made aware that they were prohibited. P picked up a can of mousse and started to carry it in her tote toward the front counter to ask the cashier a question about it. As she approached the front of the store, the assistant manager approached her and asked what was in the bag. The manager told P that once she put the hair mousse in her tote bag, she was shoplifting. The police were called, and when P refused to sign a 'no trespass' card indicating she would not return to the store, P was arrested and charged with shoplifting, resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and disorderly conduct. P sued D, and the district court concluded that Ds had the authority to detain P and are immune from suit. The district court granted summary judgment in Ds' favor and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. P appealed. The main issue on appeal was P's act of putting the mousse into the bag and whether that satisfies a statutory presumption that P intended to shoplift.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.