Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 94B (2026)

False arrest; shoplifting; defrauding innkeepers; defenses

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 94B. In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment brought by any person by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a merchant or an innkeeper, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable length of time by a person authorized to make arrests or by the merchant or innkeeper or his agent or servant authorized for such purpose and if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit a violation of section thirty A of chapter two hundred and sixty-six, or section twelve of chapter one hundred and forty, or was committing or attempting to commit larceny of goods for sale on such premises or larceny of the personal property of employees or customers or others present on such premises, it shall be a defense to such action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2011 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Rogers, 945 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Rogers, 945 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 7× “were threatening [him] with serious bodily harm.”

Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 508 N.E.2d 72 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 2× “Polaroid's next argument relative to Foley's claim of false imprisonment is that the judge erred by instructing the jury that "physical force, placement of physical barriers, threats of physical harm, or threats of other harm" may be the means of effectuating an unlawful…”

Coblyn v. Kennedy's, Inc., 268 N.E.2d 860 (Mass. 1971). · cites it 3× “This statute provides as follows: “In an action for false arrest or false imprisonment brought by any person by reason of having been detained for questioning on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a merchant, if such person was detained in a reasonable manner and…”

Commonwealth v. Grise, 496 N.E.2d 162 (Mass. 1986). “See G. L. c. 231, § 94B, as appearing in St. 1985, c.”

Commonwealth v. Hudson, 535 N.E.2d 208 (Mass. 1989). “The Legislature amended the false arrest statute, G. L. c. 231, § 94B, in the same act that adopted the shoplifting statute.”

Seelig v. Harvard Coop. Soc'y, 296 N.E.2d 825 (Mass. App. Ct. 1973). “319, 326 (same probable cause standard applied to false arrest under G. L. c. 231, § 94B). Under this test the question is “not whether he was in fact guilty but whether the defendant had probable cause to believe that he was.”

Harris v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 1994 Mass. App. Div. 247 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1994). “With respect to the claim of false imprisonment, the court cited G.L.c. 231, §94B (against claim of false imprisonment merchant may interpose that detention was based on reasonable belief person was committing or attempting shoplifting, provided manner and period of detention…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.