Thank you for using JustAnswer. I am researching your issue and will respond shortly.
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Ultimately it would depend on whether they had "probable cause" or not. That is, the law does allow them to detain you, even if they were wrong in doing so, if they have "probable cause" that you committed a larceny (theft).
The Florida shopkeeper's immunity statute protects a merchant from a false arrest claim (a lawsuit) only when the merchant has probable cause to believe that the person detained has committed a larceny. See, e.g., Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc., 387 So.2d 377, 379 n. 3 (Fla.App.1980) ("the existence of probable cause for believing that the person arrested committed larceny of the goods held for sale would insulate [the merchant] from liability"). It is not sufficient for the merchant to have probable cause to believe that someone stole his property; the statute makes clear that the merchant must have reason to believe that the person taken into custody has committed the theft. Of course, the person detained does not have to be found guilty in order for the merchant to substantiate the claim that he had probable cause for the detention. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Kincaid, 335 So.2d 560 (Fla.App.1976). The Florida courts have indicated that "[t]he probable cause [necessary] to support a temporary detention of a suspected shoplifter by a merchant or a merchant's employee is less than the probable cause required to support a later prosecution." Gatto, 387 So.2d at 379, n. 3.
And that's really a "question of fact" for the judge / jury to determine.
But if all that was known to the retailer is that you were walking around, etc... and there was not actually any eyewitness to you handling the item allegedly taken, etc... then it would be difficult for them to show probable cause.
And if they don't have probable cause, then that would mean that their detention of you could constitute false arrest / false imprisonment.
Since this is a tort, you could sue for any actual damages (lost wages, etc...) as well as noneconomic damages (mental anguish, pain and suffering) and seek punitive damages if the actions were grossly negligent.
Again, any success that you have in a lawsuit is going to be tied to the evidence that they had at the time that they detained you. If a jury determines that they had "probable cause", even though you did not actually steal anything, that would be a defense for them. But if they didn't have probable cause, you could sue them.
My pleasure.If you have any other questions, please let me know. If not, and you have not yet, please rate my answer AND press the "submit" button, if applicable. Please note that I don't get any credit for my answer unless and until you rate it a 3, 4, 5 (good or better). Thank you, XXXXX XXXXX good luck to you!
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).