After making purchases in a drug store, Mrs. Arnold attempted to leave the premises. The store had posted notice of its utilization of an anti-shoplifting device. As she approached the anti-shoplifting device, the alarm sounded. Mrs. Arnold claimed she had mistakenly put a pen in her pocket and had then forgotten to pay for it. The store manager had observed appellant’s behavior after the anti-shoplifting, notwithstanding her after-the-fact explanation that she had simply forgotten about the pen. After a jury acquitted Mrs. Arnold of shoplifting, she brought a civil action for malicious prosecution.

Does probable cause negate a claim for malicious prosecution?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Probable cause is centered on facts that are established foll... View the full answer