Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
762 P.2d 609 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the shopkeeper's privilege, the determination of whether a merchant had reasonable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter is a question of law for the court when the facts and inferences leading up to the detention are not in dispute. The jury's role is limited to resolving disputed facts and determining whether the manner and duration of the detention were reasonable.
Facts:
- On December 6, 1982, Sears security guards Steve Lessard and Dave Pollack suspected Max Koepnick of shoplifting a wrench.
- A sales clerk informed Lessard that he believed Koepnick had shoplifted the item.
- Lessard spoke with all salespersons on the floor in the hardware department and determined that none of them had sold a wrench to Koepnick.
- Lessard and Pollack observed Koepnick for approximately 20-25 minutes before Koepnick left the store.
- The guards stopped Koepnick in the Fiesta Mall parking lot and detained him.
- After about 15 minutes, Mesa police arrived, and an investigation revealed that Koepnick had receipts for the wrench and all other merchandise.
- The clerk who sold the wrench to Koepnick was located and verified the sale.
- A police officer and Lessard searched Koepnick's truck in the parking lot but found no stolen items.
Procedural Posture:
- Max Koepnick sued Sears Roebuck and Company in an Arizona trial court for false arrest and trespass to chattel, among other claims.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Sears on all claims except false arrest and trespass to chattel.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Koepnick, awarding compensatory and punitive damages on both remaining claims.
- Sears filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.) and, alternatively, a motion for a new trial.
- The trial court granted Sears' motion for a new trial on the false arrest claim and granted its motion for judgment n.o.v. on the trespass to chattel claim.
- Koepnick (appellant) appealed the trial court's orders to the intermediate appellate court, and Sears (appellee) filed a cross-appeal from the denial of its motion for judgment n.o.v. on the false arrest claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Arizona's shopkeeper's privilege statute, is the determination of reasonable cause to detain a suspected shoplifter a question of law for the court when the underlying facts that prompted the detention are undisputed?
Opinions:
Majority - Froeb, J.
Yes. When the facts or the inferences to be drawn from them are not in dispute, the existence of reasonable cause for a detention is a question of law for the court to decide. The shopkeeper's privilege, codified in A.R.S. § 13-1805, shields a merchant from liability for false arrest if the detention is based on reasonable cause and is conducted in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time. Here, the facts known to the security guard, Lessard, prior to stopping Koepnick were undisputed: a clerk believed a shoplift had occurred, other clerks on the floor denied making the sale, and the guards observed the item. Because these foundational facts were not in conflict, the trial court correctly concluded as a matter of law that it had erred by submitting the issue of reasonable cause to the jury. However, since there was conflicting evidence about the manner of the detention (e.g., whether Koepnick was pushed and denied access to a phone), that issue remained a proper question for the jury, making a new trial appropriate rather than a judgment for Sears.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the division of responsibility between the judge and jury in false arrest cases involving the shopkeeper's privilege. By holding that the existence of reasonable cause is a question of law for the court when facts are undisputed, the decision provides merchants with greater certainty and protection. It prevents juries from finding a lack of reasonable cause based on sympathy or a re-evaluation of undisputed historical facts. This precedent narrows the jury's inquiry in such cases to the reasonableness of the detention's manner and duration, thereby strengthening the statutory defense available to merchants.
Unlock the full brief for Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co.