Mrs. Dietz's false imprisonment claim is based on the allegation that Mr. Bake questioned her about missing jewelry in the store without probable cause to suspect that she was involved. She also alleged that although she had signed a document where it stated that she was free to leave at any time, she did not feel free to leave. Furthermore, she claimed that even Mr. Bake told her to “stay in the room”, making her feel intimidated. As is mentioned in Dietz v. Finlay Jewelry's case, false imprisonment involves, "an unlawful restraint upon one's freedom of locomotion or the privation of liberty of another without his or her consent." (p. 611) However, the court found that they couldn’t establish if Mr. Bake had probable cause to suspect her involvement in the jewelry theft just because she applied a 10% discount to a customer without authorization. If the judge takes into consideration Mrs. Dietz’s testimony, where she indicated that Mr. Bake told her during the interrogation "stay in the room", and the fact that Mr. Blake couldn't establish a probable cause on her alleged …show more content…
Finlay Jewelry) Mrs. Dietz’ s defamation claim is based on Mr. Bake's allegation that she stole the jewelry to support either her alcohol or drugs problem. In this case, the court that Mr. Bake had a justification in questioning Mrs. Dietz about the unauthorized discount, but they couldn't establish a reasonable reason to support his suggestion that she stole the jewelry to support her alcohol or drug habit. Although the defendants tried immunity under the qualified privilege of common interest and could show that Mrs. Camp's presence was required in the interrogation room; there was no evidence concerning on why Mr. Seufert was present. Even Mr. Bake indicated, "Mr. Seufert did not need to be there."