Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 629.366 (2026)

Theft In Business Establishments; Detaining Suspects

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Circumstances justifying detention.

(a) A merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person if the merchant or employee has reasonable cause to believe:

(1) that the person has taken, or is taking, an article of value without paying for it, from the possession of the merchant in the merchant's place of business or from a vehicle or premises under the merchant's control;

(2) that the taking is done with the intent to wrongfully deprive the merchant of the property or the use or benefit of it; or

(3) that the taking is done with the intent to appropriate the use of the property to the taker or any other person.

(b) Subject to the limitations in paragraph (a), a merchant or merchant's employee may detain a person for any of the following purposes:

(1) to require the person to provide identification or verify identification;

(2) to inquire as to whether the person possesses unpurchased merchandise taken from the merchant and, if so, to receive the merchandise;

(3) to inform a peace officer; or

(4) to institute criminal proceedings against the person.

(c) The person detained shall be informed promptly of the purpose of the detention and may not be subjected to unnecessary or unreasonable force, nor to interrogation against the person's will. A merchant or merchant's employee may not detain a person for more than one hour unless:

(1) the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the person to a peace officer, in which case the person may be detained until a peace officer has accepted custody of or released the person; or

(2) the person is a minor, or claims to be, and the merchant or employee is waiting to surrender the minor to a peace officer or the minor's parent, guardian, or custodian, in which case the minor may be detained until the peace officer, parent, guardian, or custodian has accepted custody of the minor.

(d) If at any time the person detained requests that a peace officer be summoned, the merchant or merchant's employee must notify a peace officer immediately.

Subd. 2.Arrest.

Upon a charge being made by a merchant or merchant's employee, a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable cause for believing that the person has committed or attempted to commit the offense described in subdivision 1.

Subd. 3.Immunity.

No merchant, merchant's employee, or peace officer is criminally or civilly liable for any action authorized under subdivision 1 or 2 if the arresting person's action is based upon reasonable cause.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 2× “341 (1982) (probable cause arrest allowable in domestic violence situations); section 629.366 (1982) (probable cause arrest allowable for shoplifters).”

Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “The trial court ruled that Wal-Mart was not entitled to a qualified privilege for defamation or to merchant immunity under Minn.Stat. § 629.366 (1990). The court instructed the jury on defamation, false imprisonment, and negligence.”

Jane Doe v. North Homes, Inc., 11 F.4th 633 (8th Cir. 2021). “18 (providing for involuntary civil detention in “non-state-operated” “treatment facilit[ies]”); Minn. Stat. § 629.366 (authorizing merchants to detain suspected shoplifters); Youngblood v.”

Altman v. Knox Lumber Co., 381 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 14× “At the close of the evidence, the trial court concluded that appellants had failed to detain Altman for “the sole purpose of delivering him to a peace officer” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 629.366 (1984) and directed a verdict for Altman on that issue.”

Commonwealth v. Rogers, 945 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. 2011). “” Minn. Stat. § 629.366 subdiv. 1 (c) (West 2009).”

Battle v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 399 F. Supp. 900 (D. Minnesota 1975). · cites it 5× “§ 629.366 and also violated said statute by falsely arresting and wrongfully detaining and searching plaintiffs.”

Harvey v. Dots, Inc., 561 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of an immunity-based motion for summary judgment under Minn.Stat. § 629.366 (1994). Because appellants are not governmental entities, they are not entitled to immediate appeal of the order.”

State v. Bradley, 908 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The shoplifting arrest statute, Minn. Stat. § 629.366 , subd. 1 (2016), authorizes a merchant or merchant's employee to detain, but not arrest, a suspected shoplifter if the circumstances justify the detention.”

State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “The district court concluded that Pike’s arrest was lawful because warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting theft are authorized 2 pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 629.366 , subd. 2 (2020), and because the arrest was supported by probable cause to believe that Pike had committed…”

C.G. McFarland v. First Union Mgmt. (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “False Imprisonment Minn. Stat. § 629.366 provides that a person may be detained 1 The record contains various allegations that the security officials made an unspecified racial slur against T.”

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.