Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.220 (2026)

Action for being detained on mercantile establishment premises for investigation—"Reasonable grounds" as defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any civil action brought by reason of any person having been detained on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of a mercantile establishment for the purpose of investigation or questioning as to the ownership of any merchandise, it shall be a defense of such action that the person was detained in a reasonable manner and for not more than a reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a peace officer or by the owner of the mercantile establishment, his or her authorized employee or agent, and that such peace officer, owner, employee, or agent had reasonable grounds to believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit larceny or shoplifting on such premises of such merchandise. As used in this section, "reasonable grounds" shall include, but not be limited to, knowledge that a person has concealed possession of unpurchased merchandise of a mercantile establishment, and a "reasonable time" shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine employees and records of the mercantile establishment relative to the ownership of the merchandise.
[ 2011 c 336 s 96; 1967 c 76 s 3.]

Notes:

Theft and robbery: Chapter 9A.56 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “Denying plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict, the trial court gave an instruction based on the defense found in the shopkeeper’s privilege statute, RCW 4.24.220. The jury found that Wal-Mart proved by a preponderance of the evidence that they detained the plaintiffs for a…”
State v. Miller, 698 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 4× “While no statute grants store personnel the authority to arrest shoplifters, criminal and civil statutes provide a defense for store owners who reasonably detain a person to investigate shoplifting where they have probable cause.”
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 32 P.3d 250 (Wash. 2001). “Therefore, Wal-Mart was allowed to assert the shopkeeper's privilege under RCW 4.24.220, and the jury found for Wal-Mart on the false imprisonment and battery claims.”
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 Wash. 2d 907 (Wash. 2001). “Therefore, Wal-Mart was allowed to assert the shopkeeper’s privilege under RCW 4.24.220, and the jury found for Wal-Mart on the false imprisonment and battery claims.”
State v. Garcia, 146 Wash. App. 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “080; 1 RCW 4.24.220 (civil equivalent to RCW 9A.”
State v. Garcia, 193 P.3d 181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “080 [1] and RCW 4.24.220 (civil equivalent to RCW 9A.”
Moore v. Pay'N Save Corp., 581 P.2d 159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “*484 Issues Issue 1: Are there material issues of fact as to whether Moore was falsely imprisoned? Issue 2: Does the record indicate as a matter of law that the security guard had reasonable grounds under RCW 4.24.220 to detain Moore for investigation or questioning? Decision…”
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “Denying plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, the trial court gave an instruction based on the defense found in the shopkeeper's privilege statute, RCW 4.24.220. The jury found that Wal-Mart proved by a preponderance of the evidence that they detained the plaintiffs for a…”
State v. Gonzales, 604 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “See RCW 4.24.220; RCW 9A.16.080. Here the security officer observed Gonzales leaving the store with a bulge under his overcoat.”
State v. Johnston, 933 P.2d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “080; RCW 4.24.220. There is no question that Ms.”
Beyonce Nieves v. Wal-Mart Stores (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “Nieves contends that the trial court erred (I) in giving a jury instruction based on the shopkeeper's privilege statute, RCW 4.24.220, and (2) by failing to grant her motion for judgment as a matter of law on her claim of assault.”
James (W.D. Wash. 2026). “”1 Plaintiff has thus failed to plead a proper 10 Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant employees. 11 Plaintiff has also failed to plead a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Orlosky.”
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.