Degurre had probable cause to suspect Mr. Harris of taking the missing equipment. Probable cause is not a question of fact for the jury but a question of law for the court to decide, to be determined by circumstances at the time of the detention and/or crime. Collyer V. Kress, 5 Cal. 2d 181 (1936). The issue is whether probable cause was found in the following circumstances: (a) when store employees see suspect take merchandise and put it in an overcoat, Id. At 176; (b) observing suspects on camera for 10-15 minutes follow other customers, disappear into a back room reserved for employees only, and realization suspect committed purse theft hours earlier. In re Leslie H., 169 Cal. App. 3d 659: (c) store security guard observed suspects walk from department to department picking up items then looking behind and side by side, suspects took tools in to display shed and closed door, suspect exited shed with additional bag. Cervantez V. J.C. Penney, 24 Cal. 3d 579, 586 (1979): (d) store LPS agent observed plaintiff enter store, untuck his shirt, handle various items, and exit the store walking in front of checkout counters without passing cashiers. Jones V. K-Mart, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1898, 1201-02 (1996).
Upon closer observation of Mr. Harris who was waiting at the register, Mr. Degurre noticed a bulge on the side of Mr. Harris's waist. Mr. Harris made his purchase and made his way to the stores exit and into the parking lot. Mr. Degurre asked the cashier for the receipt to see if Mr. Harris had actually purchased the drill bits and the drill that was missing. Mr. Degurre saw that the drill bits were the only item that Mr. Harris had purchased and followed Mr. Harris and the cashier than preceded to confront Mr. Harris in the store parking lot about the missing equipment. As Mr. Harris was approaching his vehicle in the parking lot, Mr. Degurre told Mr. Harris to put down his bags, put his hands on the top of his vehicle, handcuffed, and placed under arrest.
