Prior to the Appellant's attempted return, personnel at the Nitro Wal-Mart had been advised that a theft of a computer had been perpetrated at a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart store, using a receipt which had been stolen from the Nitro Wal-Mart on August 27, 1999. The date and type of computer on the Appellant's receipt matched the date and type of computer on the stolen receipt; however, the serial number on the computer the Appellant presented for return was not checked by the Wal-Mart personnel. Based upon the date and type of computer, store managers Joyce Hoover and David Walker were suspicious of the Appellant's attempted return and request for a refund of his money.

    Managers Hoover and Walker asked the Appellant to wait while they contacted their supervisor concerning the refund. The managers thereafter contacted the Nitro Police Department to request assistance in investigating the possibility of theft and determining whether the receipt displayed by the Appellant had any connection to the Pennsylvania theft. Officer David Dean   (See footnote 1)  arrived at the Wal-Mart store and asked the Appellant to accompany him out of the customer service area into the main aisle separating the customer service area from the main part of the store. The officer then questioned the Appellant concerning the receipt. The Wal-Mart managers were standing nearby during most of this conversation. The Appellant testified that the managers told him they thought the receipt was “a fake, felonious receipt.”

    The Appellant was informed by the managers and the officer that he was not being detained, but that an investigation had to be conducted before a determination concerning the requested refund could be made. The managers and the officer thereafter walked away from the Appellant. When they returned, the Appellant's refund was processed, and his account was credited.   (See footnote 2) 
    
    As he continued to shop in the store after this incident, Managers Hoover and Walker approached him, apologized for the delay in refunding his account, and provided him with gift certificates for use in the Wal-Mart store. The loss prevention manager, Mr. Doug West, also approached the Appellant, apologized for the confusion, and told the Appellant that he had reviewed a videotape from the Pennsylvania robbery and had determined that the Appellant was not on the videotape.

    On September 3, 1999, the Appellant filed a complaint against Wal-Mart, Joyce Hoover, and David Walker, alleging unlawful detention and defamation. Subsequent to the taking of depositions of all participants, Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment. The Appellant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issues, and the lower court requested that the Appellant's counsel write a letter detailing the evidence he intended to rely upon to substantiate the defamation and unlawful detention claims. Subsequent to a review of arguments submitted by the Appellant, as well as Wal-Mart's responses, the lower court entered summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.

    In the February 7, 2001, order granting summary judgment, the lower court expressly acknowledged that “[t]he personnel at Wal-Mart had been alerted that a fraudulent scheme had been perpetrated at a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart store involving theft of a computer by using a receipt stolen from the Nitro Wal-Mart on August 27, 1999.” The lower court also recognized that the Appellant admitted that the Wal-Mart employees did not detain him. The lower court further reasoned that it was the Appellant who had informed other individuals about the Wal-Mart incident and that the Appellant had not demonstrated that “his reputation has suffered in any way from the incident; his main complaint seems to be some teasing by his friends and co-workers, after he disclosed the incident to them.”

    With specific regard to the defamation claim, the lower court found that “[t]here is no defamatory statement at issue here.”

    If one believes everything that Mr. Belcher said, including that the Wal-Mart co-managers, Hoover and Walker, told him that they thought his receipt was “false,” “felonious” and/or “fake,” the worst that can be said about their statements is that they were explaining to him the basis for their investigation, though perhaps not very tactfully.

Moreover, the lower court found that the element of communication to a third party, necessary in a defamation claim, was also lacking. The court found that “there has been no evidence put before this Court that Wal-Mart communicated any information about Mr. Belcher to any third-party, aside from the police officer who came to the store, Officer Dean.”

    Summarizing the Crump standard, this Court explained in Bine v. Owens, 208 W. Va. 679, 542 S.E.2d 842 (2000), that “to have a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show that false and defamatory statements were made against him, or relating to him, to a third party who did not have a reasonable right to know, and that the statements were made at least negligently on the part of the party making the statements, and resulted in injury to the plaintiff.” Id. at 683, 542 S.E.2d at 846.

    In syllabus point two of Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995), this Court discussed the necessity of addressing each essential element of a cause of action in a multi-element claim, explaining as follows: “Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence presented, the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove.” 194 W. Va. at 56, 459 S.E.2d at 333 (emphasis supplied). Thus, if one element fails, there is no possibility for recovery, and the argument that there may be genuine issues of material fact regarding other elements will not permit a plaintiff to prevail against a defendant's motion for summary judgment.

    In accord with that analytical construct, the lower court held that the Appellant's defamation cause of action failed on two essential elements, the existence of a defamatory statement and nonprivileged communication to a third party. We examine these issues separately below.

    The lower court examined the testimony of the parties regarding the actual statements made by Wal-Mart personnel. The most pernicious statement made by the Wal- Mart managers was that they thought the Appellant's receipt was false, felonious, and/or fake. The lower court concluded that these statements, while perhaps not exceedingly tactful, were made in conjunction with the managers' efforts to explain the basis for their investigation. The Appellant admits in his deposition that “they didn't accuse me. . . .” According to the Appellant's deposition, when he asked the managers if they were accusing him of stealing the computer, they responded, “No, nobody is accusing you of stealing.”

    Wal-Mart maintains that the Appellant failed to produce evidence supporting this element of the defamation cause of action. The record reflects that Officer Dean was the only third party to whom Wal-Mart employees communicated any information concerning the Appellant. In syllabus point six of Crump, this Court held that “'[t]he existence or nonexistence of a qualifiedly privileged occasion . . . in the absence of controversy as to the facts, [is a] question [ ] of law for the court.' Syl. pt. 3, Swearingen v. Parkersburg Sentinel Co., 125 W.Va. 731, 26 S.E.2d 209 (1943).” 173 W.Va. at 703, 320 S.E.2d at 74.

    This Court further explained as follows in syllabus point four of Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 191 W.Va. 278, 445 S.E.2d 219 (1994),

        Qualified privileges are based upon the public policy that true information be given whenever it is reasonably necessary for the protection of one's own interests, the interests of third persons or certain interests of the public. A qualified privilege exists when a person publishes a statement in good faith about a subject in which he has an interest or duty and limits the publication of the statement to those persons who have a legitimate interest in the subject matter; however, a bad motive will defeat a qualified privilege defense.

As the Court of Appeal of Louisiana observed in Aranyosi v. Delchamps, Inc., 739 So.2d 911 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 1999), “any statement made by an employer to law enforcement officials in the course of an investigation of criminal activity is privileged and provides no basis for a defamation suit, even assuming the accuracy of a plaintiff's allegations.” Id. at 916, citing Wright v. Dollar General Corp, 602 So.2d 772, 775 (La. App. 2^nd Cir. 1992).

    The evaluation of the Appellant's claim of unlawful detention against Wal- Mart must focus upon the actions of the Wal-Mart employees, rather than upon any subsequent action or delay occasioned by the police officer. The issue of whether the police officer's subsequent actions constituted detention   (See footnote 5)  is not relevant since any action by the police officer would not impose liability upon Wal-Mart. As this Court explained in the syllabus of Lusk v. Ira Watson Co., 185 W.Va. 680, 408 S.E.2d 630 (1991),

        Absent evidence that the police officers acted at the direction of the merchant, the merchant cannot be deemed liable for any actions taken by the officers. The act of summoning police officers to the scene of a reasonably suspected shoplifting is not sufficient to invoke liability upon the merchant for any subsequent independent actions of the police officers.

    The accommodations of West Virginia Code § 61-3A-4 (1981) (Repl. Vol. 2000) must also be acknowledged. Even in Wal-Mart employees had “detained” the Appellant, that statute permits such detention to a reasonable time not to exceed thirty minutes, providing as follows:

    [A]ny owner of merchandise, his agent or employee, or any law-enforcement officer who has reasonable ground to believe that a person has committed shoplifting, may detain such person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time not to exceed thirty minutes, for the purpose of investigating whether or not such person has committed or attempted to commit shoplifting. Such reasonable detention shall not constitute an arrest nor shall it render the owner of merchandise, his agent or employee, liable to the person detained.

    The Appellant's reliance upon Tanner v. Rite Aid of West Virginia, Inc., 194 W. Va. 643, 461 S.E.2d 149 (1995), is misplaced. In Tanner, the parties were physically assaulted by the Rite-Aid employees and brought an action for outrage, battery, and false imprisonment. The Rite-Aid employee approached one of the plaintiffs and “stopped her by 'roughly' grabbing her shoulder and ceasing her forward motion.” Id. at 647, 461 S.E.2d at 153. Having examined Tanner, we are not persuaded that the present matter is comparable to the more egregious facts in Tanner.

    A more factually analogous situation was encountered by the Louisiana court in Taylor v. Johnson, 796 So.2d 11 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001). In Taylor, a prescription had been phoned into a local pharmacy, and the pharmacist became suspicious of the authenticity of the prescription request based upon the unclear phone connection and the fact that the pharmacist thought that the doctor had not pronounced his own name correctly. Id. at 12. After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the doctor, the pharmacist spoke with the doctor's partner and learned that it was unlikely that the doctor had called in the prescription since the “office had a policy that only the on-call dentist would phone in prescriptions.” Id. The pharmacist thereafter contacted the police department concerning the possible prescription fraud. When Ms. Taylor, the woman for whom the prescription had allegedly been ordered, arrived to pick up her prescription, a pharmacy clerk informed her that she would have to wait for the prescription to be filled.

    In ruling on Ms. Taylor's false imprisonment claim, the court found that

    [t]he tort of false imprisonment is inapplicable to the appellants' actions. An essential element of the tort of false imprisonment is detention of the person. The record is void of any evidence that Mr. Hill or any other Wal-Mart employee detained Ms. Taylor, restricted her movement in the store, advised her she could not leave, or caused her to be arrested.

Id. at 13-14 (citations omitted). “At no time did Mr. Hill or any employee of Wal-Mart attempt to physically detain her. At no time was she told she could not leave the store.” Id. at 12.

    In Miller v. Grand Union Co., 552 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. App. 2001), a shopper sued a store for false imprisonment based upon an allegedly unreasonable investigation of suspected shoplifting. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that the evidence did not establish a claim of false imprisonment “[b]ecause [store personnel] had reasonable cause to believe that shoplifting was in progress. . . .” Id. at 494.

    Based upon the unique facts of the case presently before this Court, Wal-Mart alleges that its employees had legitimate cause for further investigation of the Appellant's receipt and reasonably refused to provide the refund pending investigation to determine whether it was connected in any way with the felonious scheme originating in Pennsylvania. The record is devoid of evidence indicating that Wal-Mart employees informed the Appellant that he could not leave, physically restrained the Appellant, or indicated in any manner that he was being detained. In fact, the Appellant testified that the managers “didn't detain me.”

The apparent basis for the Appellant's decision to remain in the store was his desire for the refund.

    The Appellant's decision to remain in the store does not establish the necessary elements for a claim of unlawful detention. An individual's personal belief that he was compelled to remain has not been held sufficient to justify liability for unlawful detention, absent evidence establishing a reasonable basis for the individual's belief that his personal liberty was being limited or his freedom of locomotion was being deprived. See Riffe v. Armstrong, 197 W.Va. 626, 640, 477 S.E.2d 535, 549 (1996) (“This Court has said that the gist of the action for false imprisonment is illegal detention of a person without lawful process or by an unlawful execution of such process”); syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Sovine v. Stone, 149 W.Va. 310, 140 S.E.2d 801 (1965) (“In order to effect an unlawful arrest constituting false imprisonment without a manual seizure or touching of the subject of the arrest, there must be such words and conduct on the part of a known officer as to give reasonable ground for belief on the part of the subject that the officer has the present intention to make the arrest and submission on the part of the subject in good faith and under the belief that he has been arrested or will be arrested immediately.”); Johnson v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 82 W.Va. 692, 697, 97 S.E. 189, 191 (1918) (“Any exercise of force, or express or implied threat of force, by which in fact any person is deprived of his liberty, compelled to remain where he does not wish to remain, or to go where he does not wish to go, is an imprisonment”).

    In Dent v. May Department Stores, Co., 459 A.2d 1042 (D.C. App. 1982), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals addressed the issue of a reasonable basis for the belief that one is being detained and reasoned as follows:

    “[T]he unlawful detention of a person without a warrant for any length of time whereby he is deprived of his personal liberty or freedom of locomotion . . . by actual force, or by fear of force, or even by words” constitutes false imprisonment.

Id. at 1044, quoting Tocker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 190 A.2d 822, 824 (D.C. 1963).

    In Weishapl v. Sowers, 771 A.2d 1014 (D.C. 2001), the court explained that the determination of whether the particular conduct constitutes false imprisonment does not depend upon the “subjective state of mind of the plaintiff. . . .” Id. at 1020. Rather, it “depends upon the actions and words of the defendant, which must provide a basis for a reasonable apprehension of present confinement.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Wallace v. Thornton, 672 So.2d 724, 727 (Miss. 1996), quoting Thornhill v. Wilson, 504 So.2d 1205, 1208 (Miss. 1987) (holding that unlawfulness of detention is based upon whether, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the actions of the defendants were objectively reasonable in their nature, purpose, extent and duration”). In examining the actions of the defendant in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mitchell, 877 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994), the Kentucky court found that the plaintiff had established a legitimate basis for submitting factual issues for jury determination where the plaintiff, Mr. Blackburn, had asserted as follows:

    while they were in the parking lot Jackson grabbed him by the arm and tried to put his hand in Blackburn's pants, apparently to extricate the object he thought the boy had stolen. Blackburn also testified that both Jackson and Landers “manhandled” him by grabbing his arms and taking him, against his will, to a training room in the rear of the store. Once there, Jackson closed and locked the door, and interrogated and intimidated him for approximately thirty minutes. During this time, Blackburn continued, Jackson several times ordered him to pull down his pants. Jackson also purportedly tried to persuade Blackburn to sign a statement admitting his guilt to the alleged theft, although Jackson never called the police or recovered any stolen merchandise.

Id. at 617; see also Elrod v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 737 So.2d 208, 212 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1999) (holding that stationing employee “guards” at the door of interrogation room constituted evidence that suspected shoplifter was detained); Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 675 So.2d 1184, 1186 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1996) (holding that woman who did not leave store because she did not wish to be suspected of stealing, in the absence of testimony that she was prevented from leaving store, did not establish unlawful detention); Coates v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets Inc., 152 So.2d 865, 866 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1963) (finding no liability where plaintiff was not required to remain and submitted to having bag searched).

    In the case sub judice, we decline to translate the Appellant's subjective concerns or interpretation of the circumstances into a legitimate case of unlawful detention, in the absence of evidence that Wal-Mart employees actually detained the Appellant, limited his personal liberty, or restrained his freedom of motion through force or actions which would provide a reasonable basis for the Appellant's belief that he was being detained. Consequently, upon our review of this matter, we find that the lower court was correct in its determination that the Appellant presented insufficient evidence to support his claim for unlawful detention and that such claim should be resolved by summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.