Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 330 Ga. App. 340

Background

Smith, a Wal‑Mart employee, showed a customer iPods on Nov 19, 2010; while one man distracted her, a second removed multiple iPods from the open case and left. Smith did not realize items were missing. Two suspects were later arrested for that theft.
On Dec 7, 2010 Wal‑Mart loss prevention officers Vining and Patel called Smith to a back office, showed a surveillance video, accused her of involvement, and obtained a written statement from her denying involvement. Smith later wrote she had freedom to leave and testified she was told she could leave.
Wal‑Mart referred the incident to police. On Dec 15 Officer Spikes contacted Smith to come to the precinct; police viewed the video with her. Detective Johnson arrested Smith at the station on 14 counts of fiduciary theft and one count of making a false statement; Smith was held in jail and later released on bond; charges were nolle prossed.
Discovery showed conflict among Wal‑Mart employees: one loss prevention officer (Williams) said he saw no evidence of Smith’s involvement on the tape, while others (Vining/Patel) said they intended to call police and have Smith arrested; Spikes allegedly asked Patel on the phone at the precinct, “What do you want us to do with her?” (Patel denied this).
Smith sued Wal‑Mart for false arrest and false imprisonment. The trial court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part: affirmed dismissal of false arrest claim (no warrant) and false imprisonment claim against Wal‑Mart for the in‑store interview; reversed as to false imprisonment based on the warrantless arrest, holding material factual disputes remain.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of false arrest claim (warrant-based)	Smith argues Wal‑Mart caused an unlawful arrest and is liable.	Wal‑Mart notes Smith was not arrested pursuant to a warrant, so OCGA § 51‑7‑1 false arrest claim fails.	Court: Affirmed for Wal‑Mart — false arrest claim requires arrest pursuant to a warrant; none here.
False imprisonment re: in‑store interview	Smith contends she was detained in the back office and not free to leave.	Wal‑Mart points to Smith’s signed statement and deposition saying she was free to leave and was not physically restrained.	Court: Affirmed for Wal‑Mart — contradictions in Smith’s statements defeat her claim; no detention as matter of law.
Whether Wal‑Mart procured Smith’s warrantless arrest	Smith argues Wal‑Mart loss prevention procured/aroused the arrest (e.g., told police to arrest her; Spikes’s call).	Wal‑Mart and officers claim police made an independent investigation and Wal‑Mart did not direct arrest.	Court: Reversed for trial — disputed facts exist whether Wal‑Mart procured the arrest; jury question.
Lawfulness of warrantless arrest (probable cause/exigent circumstance)	Smith argues video and facts do not establish probable cause; disputed whether she saw the taker and lied.	Wal‑Mart argues officer had probable cause from the video and statements to arrest for theft or making a false statement.	Court: Reversed for trial — whether facts known to arresting officer amounted to probable cause is disputed; jury must decide.

Key Cases Cited

Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (court’s summary judgment standard)
Ferrell v. Mikula, 295 Ga. App. 326 (distinction between false arrest and false imprisonment)
Fields v. Kroger Co., 202 Ga. App. 475 (detention may be nonphysical; no detention = no false imprisonment)
Scott Housing Systems v. Hickox, 174 Ga. App. 23 (party that procures a warrantless arrest may be liable)
Wolf Camera, Inc. v. Royter, 253 Ga. App. 254 (distinguishing relaying facts from procuring an arrest; probable cause jury question)
Collins v. Sadlo, 167 Ga. App. 317 (warrantless arrest exceptions are exigent circumstances presupposing probable cause)
Durden v. State, 250 Ga. 325 (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
Melton v. LaCalamito, 158 Ga. App. 820 (probable cause is mixed question of law and fact)