Meika Prince’s lawsuit against Brian Vinegar, the Walgreens security guard who confronted her at a downtown Seattle store, is a civil case filed in King County Superior Court accusing Vinegar, his employer ASC Security & Investigations, and Walgreens of assault, battery, unlawful imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision. The case, Prince v. Walgreens Co., et al., No. 24-2-08405-3 SEA, was filed on April 16, 2024, and remained active in early 2025.1Trellis Law. Prince Et Ano v. Walgreens Co DBA Et Al
What Happened at the Seattle Walgreens
On the evening of March 27, 2024, Prince went into the Walgreens at 222 Pike Street to pick up a prescription. As she tried to leave, Vinegar, working as a contract security guard through ASC Security & Investigations, blocked the exit and accused her of shoplifting.2FOX 13 Seattle. Armed Security Guard Walgreens According to her complaint, he gestured toward her body, demanded she empty her pockets, called her a thief, followed her through the store, made unwanted physical contact, and threatened to handcuff her and take her to the ground.3The Civil Rights Lawyer. Complaint, Prince v. Walgreens Co., Case No. 24-2-08405-3 SEA
Prince recorded the confrontation on her phone and called police herself. When officers arrived, Vinegar reportedly admitted there was no surveillance footage of any theft and could not identify who had told him Prince was stealing. The store manager on duty denied ever telling him to stop her. Vinegar’s own body-worn camera had not been turned on.4Atlanta Black Star. Walgreens Security Guard Tells Black Woman She Was on Video Stealing Items, She Calls the Police
The Guard’s Gear and License
Vinegar was heavily armed for a retail post. He was carrying a pistol, two ammunition magazines, a Taser, mace, multiple pairs of handcuffs, two body cameras, and a flashlight over a tactical vest.2FOX 13 Seattle. Armed Security Guard Walgreens The complaint alleges he wore a “Sea Gate New York Police Detective shield” and a modified American flag.3The Civil Rights Lawyer. Complaint, Prince v. Walgreens Co., Case No. 24-2-08405-3 SEA
FOX 13 Seattle reported that Vinegar’s Washington security guard license was listed as inactive at the time of the confrontation, meaning he was effectively unlicensed.2FOX 13 Seattle. Armed Security Guard Walgreens Under Chapter 18.170 of the Revised Code of Washington, working as a security guard without a valid license is a gross misdemeanor, and the same statute prohibits private security personnel from wearing any name, badge, or insignia that portrays them as a public law enforcement agency.5Washington State Legislature. RCW 18.170.160
What Prince Is Suing For
The complaint asserts five causes of action: assault, for putting Prince in reasonable fear of unwanted contact; battery, for repeated unwanted physical contact; unlawful imprisonment, for interfering with her freedom of movement without legal authority; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and negligent hiring and supervision against Walgreens for failing to verify Vinegar’s licensure, failing to require identifiable security uniforms, failing to supervise armed staff, and failing to intervene during the confrontation.3The Civil Rights Lawyer. Complaint, Prince v. Walgreens Co., Case No. 24-2-08405-3 SEA
The complaint seeks general and special damages to be determined at trial, including past and future medical expenses, compensation for mental and physical pain and suffering, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. No dollar figure is specified. Prince’s theory holds Walgreens, ASC Security, and Vinegar jointly and severally liable under respondeat superior, so each corporate defendant can be held responsible for Vinegar’s conduct as an employee acting within the scope of his work.3The Civil Rights Lawyer. Complaint, Prince v. Walgreens Co., Case No. 24-2-08405-3 SEA
Prince is represented by attorney James Prescott, who told FOX 13 that while “stores do have a legal right to defend themselves against loss, there’s a way that they have to do that.”2FOX 13 Seattle. Armed Security Guard Walgreens Samuel John Elder Jr. is co-counsel of record.1Trellis Law. Prince Et Ano v. Walgreens Co DBA Et Al
Why the Shopkeeper’s Privilege Defense Is a Problem for the Defendants
Washington gives merchants and their agents a defense when they detain a suspected shoplifter, but the conditions are narrow. Under RCW 4.24.220, a store or its security can detain a person only when they have reasonable grounds to believe the person was stealing, and the detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time.6Washington State Legislature. RCW 4.24.220 The Seattle Police Department’s retail theft manual states that a security agent should personally witness the offense before making an apprehension.7Seattle Police Department. Retail Theft Manual
The lawsuit turns on the allegation that none of those conditions were met. Vinegar could not identify a source for the theft accusation, no surveillance footage of a theft existed, and the manager denied directing the stop. If the defense cannot establish reasonable grounds for the detention, the shopkeeper’s privilege falls away and the stop can be treated as unlawful imprisonment under state law.
Where the Case Stands
The case remains active in King County Superior Court as of April 2025. Prince’s team filed a motion to compel discovery in the fall of 2024, which the court granted in November 2024. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss in December 2024, which the court denied on December 18, 2024. A jury trial demand was filed on January 9, 2025, followed by a motion to change the trial date, and the court amended the case schedule and granted a continuance on January 27, 2025. A notice of association of counsel was filed on March 13, 2025. No settlement or trial outcome has been publicly reported.1Trellis Law. Prince Et Ano v. Walgreens Co DBA Et Al