Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc
680 P.2d 807 (1984)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The shopkeeper's privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter requires not only reasonable cause for the detention, but also that the detention is for a proper purpose and conducted in a reasonable manner; if any of these three elements is not met, the privilege does not apply.

Facts:

Ernest Gortarez, age 16, and his cousin, Albert Hernandez, age 18, were shopping at a Smitty's Super Value store.
Gortarez picked up a 59-cent vaporizer and asked a clerk if he could pay for it at the front of the store, to which the clerk agreed.
The clerk, feeling suspicious, followed the cousins but sometimes lost a clear view of them.
Gortarez left the vaporizer in a basket at an unattended checkout stand, and the cousins then exited the store.
Believing they had stolen the item, the clerk alerted security guard Daniel Gibson that the two had "ripped us off."
In the parking lot, Gibson and other employees confronted the cousins. Gibson immediately seized Hernandez, pushed him against a car, and began searching him without first questioning him.
In response to Gibson's actions against his cousin, Gortarez ran over and pushed Gibson away.
Gibson then grabbed Gortarez, placed him in a choke hold, and held him until another employee found the vaporizer inside the store. Gortarez later required medical treatment for injuries from the choke hold.

Procedural Posture:

Ernest Gortarez, Jr. and his parents sued Smitty’s Super Value, Inc. and its security guard, Daniel Gibson, in an Arizona state trial court for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery.
The case was tried before a jury. At the close of evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the false arrest and false imprisonment claims.
The jury decided the remaining assault and battery claim, returning a verdict in favor of defendant Gibson.
The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where they were the appellants.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The plaintiffs, as petitioners, sought and were granted review by the Supreme Court of Arizona.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the shopkeeper's privilege under A.R.S. § 13-1805 shield a merchant from liability for false imprisonment when the detention is not conducted in a reasonable manner or for a proper purpose, even if the merchant had reasonable cause to detain the suspect?

Opinions:

Majority - Feldman, Justice

No. The shopkeeper's privilege does not shield a merchant from liability if the detention, even if based on reasonable cause, is conducted for an improper purpose or in an unreasonable manner. The statute, A.R.S. § 13-1805, sets forth a three-part test for the privilege to apply: 1) reasonable cause, 2) a proper purpose (questioning or summoning law enforcement), and 3) a reasonable manner and duration of detention. The court found that reasonable cause was only the threshold inquiry. Here, questions of fact existed for the jury as to whether the purpose and manner of the detention were reasonable. The immediate use of physical force on Hernandez without any prior request to remain or questioning, and the subsequent choke hold on Gortarez, could be found by a jury to be unreasonable. Therefore, the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the false imprisonment claim and in failing to give a complete self-defense instruction for the assault and battery claim, as a jury could find Gibson was the initial aggressor.

Dissenting - Holohan, Chief Justice

Yes. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority misapplies the law to the actual plaintiff, Gortarez. The defendant's agents had reasonable cause to detain Gortarez, who was the one suspected of taking the item. Initially, no unreasonable action was directed at Gortarez; he was not touched or restrained. The force used against his cousin, Hernandez, is irrelevant to Gortarez's personal claim of false imprisonment. Gortarez initiated the physical confrontation by pushing the security guard, making him the aggressor. Therefore, the directed verdict on false imprisonment was correct, and the trial court's judgment should have been affirmed.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the scope of the shopkeeper's privilege in Arizona by establishing a conjunctive, three-part test that requires more than just reasonable cause. By holding that the purpose and manner of detention are factual questions for the jury when in dispute, the decision limits a trial court's ability to dismiss false imprisonment claims on a directed verdict. The ruling serves as a check on aggressive loss prevention tactics, emphasizing that the method of detention is as legally important as the justification for it. This precedent ensures that the privilege is a narrow exception to tort liability and not a grant of broad immunity for merchants.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature