Serpico v. Menard, Inc.

927 F. Supp. 276 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, who is seventy years old, went to D's store to pick up supplies that he needed to fix a broken sprinkler system for his employer. The first item P looked for and located was a nut. After picking out a nut, which had a value of less than 70 cents, P asked several of D's employees where he could locate pipe wrap. P put the 'solitary, little nut' in his pocket so that he would not drop the nut or misplace it while he searched for the pipe wrap. P found the wrap and went to a cash register and paid for the pipe wrap, but forgot to remove or pay for the nut he had put in his pocket. After P exited, one of D's representatives stopped P and forced him to accompany the representative to a closed room within the store. D demanded that P empty his pockets. P proceeded to remove the nut, money, and a cash register receipt for the pipe wrap. D refused to listen to P's explanation. D took P's picture and displayed it on a bulletin board along with numerous other pictures labeled as criminals who had stolen merchandise, and called the Chicago Police Department to have an officer come to D's store to file a criminal complaint against P for shoplifting. The officer tried to dissuade the manager from filing a complaint against P, telling the manager that P did not intend to steal the nut and that P had made an honest mistake. D insisted on filing a criminal complaint, and the police took P to the station where he was fingerprinted. P was forced to retain a lawyer. The lawyer called D who told the attorney trial defendant intended to prosecute plaintiff for shoplifting. P's employer even called D and vouched for Ps integrity, and that P had not intended to steal the item and explained that it always reimbursed P for all purchases P made for repairs for the employer (thus negating any motive or intent by plaintiff to steal the nut). A vice president of P's employer told a manager at D's corporate headquarters that the store manager had decided that P had not intended to steal the nut. D's corporate headquarters, however, told P's attorney that regardless of whether P intended to steal the nut, it still intended to prosecute as that was its policy. On the date set for P's criminal trial no one from D's company appeared, and the judge dismissed the charges. After the trial date, D then made a civil restitution settlement demand. D was 'willing to settle the matter for $100. The letter noted that settlement of D's civil claim did not prevent local authorities from proceeding with a criminal prosecution. A second letter from D threatened a civil lawsuit. P sued first. D has not filed a counterclaim or otherwise made good on its 'legal enforcement manager's' threat to sue plaintiff for the 70-cent nut.