Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores[1] was a 1974 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court regarding an alleged case of shoplifting.

[3] Albertina Gustafson (plaintiff), a resident of San Pedro, California, was visiting relatives in Salem, Oregon with her husband.

[1][2] On August 10, 1972, she and her mother-in-law visited the local Payless Drug Store (company later acquired by Rite Aid).

In failing to supply all the relevant details, Payless became instrumental in "putting the law in force," thus voiding the claim of probable cause through the advice of the deputy district attorney.

[1] Denecke finally noted that it had been consistently held that the jury may make a finding of malice based upon a lack of probable cause.

[3][1] Given that probable cause was not established, sufficient evidence of malice was found upon the part of the defendant to enable the jury to find for the plaintiff.

[1] Justice Holman dissented, noting that while the aforementioned facts are relevant to whether or not the plaintiff merely forgot to pay for the cigarettes, they were wholly irrelevant to whether the detective had probable cause to prosecute Mrs. Gustafson for shoplifting.