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

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.

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