Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.080 (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 criminal 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, by the owner of the mercantile establishment, or by the owner's 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 theft 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.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.16.080.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1979–2018 · leading case: State v. Miller, 698 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Miller, 698 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 5× “She alternatively claims the arrest was unlawful because the employees are agents of the State by virtue of the defense to an action for detention provided to mercantile employees by RCW 9A.16.080. The State contends that the common law gives store owners the right as private…”
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “In any criminal 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…”
State v. Garcia, 193 P.3d 181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “See RCW 9A.16.080 [1] and RCW 4.24.220 (civil equivalent to RCW 9A.”
State v. Garcia, 146 Wash. App. 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See RCW 9A.16.080; 1 RCW 4.24.220 (civil equivalent to RCW 9A.”
State v. Johnston, 933 P.2d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “2d 554 (1985); RCW 9A.16.080; RCW 4.24.220. There is no question that Ms.”
Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “In any criminal 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…”
State v. Simmons, 635 P.2d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “The critical and only difference between the new code section and its predecessor is that the words "mental state" are substituted for "purpose, motive or intent.”
State v. Gonzales, 604 P.2d 168 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “220; RCW 9A.16.080. Here the security officer observed Gonzales leaving the store with a bulge under his overcoat.”
State v. Jones, 821 P.2d 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 9A.16.080. See State v. Miller, 103 Wn.”
State Of Washington v. Jeremiah Crouch (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “76609-1-1/10 allowed under RCW 9A.16.080. He is mistaken. The statute creates a defense against criminal liability for shopkeepers and their agents in cases where they exercise their right to detain a suspected shoplifter.”
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.