131.655
Detention and interrogation of persons suspected of theft committed in a store
or unlawful operation of audiovisual device in a motion picture theater;
probable cause.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may be detained in a
reasonable manner and for a reasonable time by:
(a) A merchant or
merchant’s employee who has probable cause for believing that the person has
committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment; or
(b) The owner or
lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner
or lessee who has probable cause to believe that the person has violated ORS
164.882.
(2) Probable
cause is a defense to any civil or criminal action based on detention and
interrogation that a person brings against:
(a) A merchant or
merchant’s employee who has detained the person in a reasonable manner and for
a reasonable time based on probable cause for believing that the person has
committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment; or
(b) The owner or
lessee of a motion picture theater or authorized agent or employee of the owner
or lessee who has detained the person based on probable cause for believing
that the person has violated ORS 164.882. [Formerly 133.037; 2005 c.459 §2]
(Prevention by Public
Officers)
Notes of Decisions
Wolf Ex Rel. Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc. (1981)
or · cites it 6×
“Defendant cross-appealed alleging error in the jury instruction on punitive damages, in the directed verdict against defendants on the defense of probable cause to detain and in the failure to instruct the jury on the statute governing probable cause, ORS 131.655. The Court of…”
State v. Greene (1979)
or · cites it 2×
“625 (authorizes frisk of stopped person and seizure of weapons); ORS 131.655 (authorizes officers and merchants to detain persons on reasonable cause to believe they have committed or attempted theft in a store); ORS 133.”
State v. White (1984)
or · cites it 4×
“005 defines "arrest" as used in ORS 131.655, a section which is concerned with detention and interrogation of persons suspected of theft committed in a store, but the text of ORS 131.”
State v. Milligan (1988)
or · cites it 2×
“005 was enacted as part of that chapter and provided (as it substantially does now): "As used in ORS 131.655 and 133.005 to 133.450, unless the context requires otherwise: "(1) `Arrest' means to place a person under actual or constructive restraint or to take a person into…”
Buckel v. Nunn (1995)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motions for directed verdicts on plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and his defense of probable cause to the claim for false imprisonment under the merchant’s…”
Blume v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1998)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“ORS 131.655(1) gives a merchant the right to interfere with a person’s freedom only if there is “probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store[.”
Campbell v. Safeway, Inc. (2004)
ord · cites it 3×
“The contours of the exception are as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer, merchant or merchant’s employee who has probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment may detain…”
State v. Adams (1987)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“See ORS 131.655. 3 In her brief in this court, defendant concedes that the interrogation was reasonable in manner and length.”
State v. Goodman (1983)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“005(1) provides: "As used in ORS 131.655 and 133.005 to 133.381 and 133.”
Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc. (1981)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“Defendant cross-appeals, contending the trial comb erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of probable cause to detain the plaintiff and in refusing to instruct the jury on ORS 131.655, the probable cause defense. 1 We affirm.”
Jones v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (1980)
orctapp
“ORS 131.655 authorizes police officers and merchants to detain persons on reasonable cause to believe that they have committed or attempted theft in a store.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.655(1) — 4 cases
Blume v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1998)
orctapp
“ORS 131.655(1) gives a merchant the right to interfere with a person’s freedom only if there is “probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store[.”
Campbell v. Safeway, Inc. (2004)
ord
“The contours of the exception are as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer, merchant or merchant’s employee who has probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store or other mercantile establishment may detain…”
State v. Adams (1987)
orctapp
“See ORS 131.655. 3 In her brief in this court, defendant concedes that the interrogation was reasonable in manner and length.”
Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc. (1981)
orctapp
“Defendant cross-appeals, contending the trial comb erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of probable cause to detain the plaintiff and in refusing to instruct the jury on ORS 131.655, the probable cause defense. 1 We affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.655(2) — 3 cases
Wolf Ex Rel. Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc. (1981)
or
“Defendant cross-appealed alleging error in the jury instruction on punitive damages, in the directed verdict against defendants on the defense of probable cause to detain and in the failure to instruct the jury on the statute governing probable cause, ORS 131.655. The Court of…”
Blume v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1998)
orctapp
“ORS 131.655(1) gives a merchant the right to interfere with a person’s freedom only if there is “probable cause for believing that a person has committed theft of property of a store[.”
Wolf v. Nordstrom, Inc. (1981)
orctapp
“Defendant cross-appeals, contending the trial comb erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of probable cause to detain the plaintiff and in refusing to instruct the jury on ORS 131.655, the probable cause defense. 1 We affirm.”
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.