Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 5. Crimes Against Property » Article 3. Larceny and Receiving Stolen Goods
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-105 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by Acts 2004, c. 462.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: Super Fresh Food Markets of Virginia, Inc. v. Ruffin, 561 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Super Fresh Food Markets of Virginia, Inc. v. Ruffin, 561 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 2002). · cites it 4× “Super Fresh asserted that it was immune from civil liability under Code § 18.2-105, which provides that a merchant who has probable cause to believe that a person has shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods or merchandise may detain and search the person.”
United States v. Day, 591 F.3d 679 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “1, a statute that solely permits the detention of suspected shoplifter for one hour pending the arrival of a law-enforcement officer, and Va. Code § 18.2-105, repealed and replaced by § 8.”
Mier v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 342 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The appellant argues that Nordstrom’s security agents should therefore be considered police officers. However, Ms. Bridge, Ms. Longest and Powell were private agents.”
Jury v. Giant of Maryland, Inc., 491 S.E.2d 718 (Va. 1997). · cites it 10× “In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 18.2-105 provides a merchant absolute immunity from civil liability for assault and battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress alleged to have occurred during the detention of a customer suspected of…”
Kay Dehart Brandau v. J. C. Penney Co., 646 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “We agree with Penney’s contention that under Virginia law—specifically Va. Code § 18.2-105 (Cum.Supp.1980)—and the evidence adduced, Penney was absolutely exempted from civil liability because at the time of the incident it had probable cause to believe that Brandau had…”
Coston v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 158 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Code §§ 18.2-105, -105.1. When a crime is committed in an officer’s presence or probable cause exists to suspect someone of shoplifting, the officer may “effect an arrest” and is “considered an arresting officer.”
Jones v. Target Corp., 341 F. Supp. 2d 583 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “At the time of the incident in issue, the identical provision was codified at Virginia Code § 18.2-105. 5 .While Jones was ultimately charged with petit larceny under § 18.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bathe, 715 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “The activation of an electronic article surveillance device as a result of a person exiting the premises or an area within the premises of a merchant where an electronic article surveillance device is located shall constitute probable cause for the detention of such person by…”
United States v. Baker, 30 M.J. 262 (C.M.A. 1990). “, Tit. 22, § 1343 (West 1986); R.I.Gen.Laws § 11-41-21 (1981 & Supp.”
Dotson v. U-Haul Co., 42 Va. Cir. 121 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1997). “§§ 18.2-105 and 18.2-105.1. U-Haul argues that these statutes, which protect merchants who detain shoplifters, apply to the case at bar and defeats any claim for false imprisonment.”
Ruffin v. Super Fresh Food Markets, 51 Va. Cir. 490 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 5× “2-105, which provides immunity to merchants who have detained a suspected shoplifter, provided the merchant has “probable cause to believe that the person had shoplifted or committed willful concealment of goods or merchandise.”
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.