A. A person commits shoplifting if, while in an establishment in which merchandise is displayed for sale, the person knowingly obtains such goods of another with the intent to deprive that person of such goods by:
1. Removing any of the goods from the immediate display or from any other place within the establishment without paying the purchase price; or
2. Charging the purchase price of the goods to a fictitious person or any person without that person's authority; or
3. Paying less than the purchase price of the goods by some trick or artifice such as altering, removing, substituting or otherwise disfiguring any label, price tag or marking; or
4. Transferring the goods from one container to another; or
5. Concealment.
B. A person is presumed to have the necessary culpable mental state pursuant to subsection A of this section if the person does either of the following:
1. Knowingly conceals on himself or another person unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment while within the mercantile establishment.
2. Uses an artifice, instrument, container, device or other article to facilitate the shoplifting.
C. A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting as prescribed in subsection A of this section for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.
D. Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or criminal action against a peace officer, a merchant or an agent or employee of the merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful imprisonment or wrongful detention.
E. If a minor engages in conduct that violates subsection A of this section, notwithstanding the fact that the minor may not be held responsible because of the person's minority, any merchant who is injured by the shoplifting of the minor may bring a civil action against the parent or legal guardian of the minor under either section 12-661 or 12-692.
F. Any merchant who is injured by the shoplifting of an adult or emancipated minor in violation of subsection A of this section may bring a civil action against the adult or emancipated minor pursuant to section 12-691.
G. In imposing sentence on a person who is convicted of violating this section, the court may require any person to perform public services designated by the court in addition to or in lieu of any fine that the court might impose.
H. Shoplifting property with a value of two thousand dollars or more, shoplifting property during any continuing criminal episode or shoplifting property if done to promote, further or assist any criminal street gang or criminal syndicate is a class 5 felony. Shoplifting property with a value of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 6 felony. Shoplifting property valued at less than one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless the property is a firearm in which case the shoplifting is a class 6 felony. For the purposes of this subsection, "continuing criminal episode" means theft of property with a value of one thousand five hundred dollars or more if committed during at least three separate incidences within a period of ninety consecutive days.
I. A person who in the course of shoplifting uses an artifice, instrument, container, device or other article with the intent to facilitate shoplifting or who commits shoplifting and who has previously committed or been convicted within the past five years of two or more offenses involving burglary, shoplifting, robbery, organized retail theft or theft is guilty of a class 4 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case:
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 54× “¶ 12 While settling jury instructions in the trial court, Brown argued that, by adding subsection I to § 13-1805, [1] the legislature created a new, substantive offense of "aggravated" shoplifting and requested that the court first instruct the jury on "aggravated shoplifting…”
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 20× “A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
In Re C.D., 377 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 19× “contends the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent on a felony charge of shoplifting pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1805(1), based on his having committed two or more previous shoplifting offenses.”
Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 680 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 13-1805 (emphasis supplied). The trial court was evidently of the view that by the terms of subsection D, reasonable cause, alone, was a defense.”
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner, 413 P.3d 683 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 14× “Winegardner responds that shoplifting, as codified in § 13-1805, is a unitary offense that may be charged in the disjunctive, using "and/or" to allege conduct covered under any of the statute's subsections.”
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 762 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “The Merchant’s Privilege Under A.R.S. § 13-1805 A.R.S. § 13-1805 grants merchants a privilege to detain suspected shoplifters on their premises under certain circumstances.”
State v. Fontes, 986 P.2d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 13-1506); verbally identified himself as a deputy; showed official identification; followed official sheriff’s department procedures; and attempted to execute his statutory duties by arresting appellant. Under these circumstances, the off-duty, privately employed deputy was…”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz, 342 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “We note that shoplifting under A.R.S. § 13-1805(1) requires use of an artifice or device, but, like organized retail theft, it is a class four felony.”
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az, 323 P.3d 736 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 13× “The State notes "A.R.S. § 13-1805(A) defines multiple additional ways that the crime of shoplifting can be committed that all differ from larceny.”
State v. Harm, 340 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-2409 (same for obstructing criminal investigations), A.R.S. § 13-1805(H) (same for shoplifting), A.”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “¶ 21 The court acknowledged the “developing, common law ‘shopkeeper’s privilege,”’ codified in A.R.S. § 13-1805, which provides in part: “A merchant, or his agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(1) — 6 cases
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 12 While settling jury instructions in the trial court, Brown argued that, by adding subsection I to § 13-1805, [1] the legislature created a new, substantive offense of "aggravated" shoplifting and requested that the court first instruct the jury on "aggravated shoplifting…”
In Re C.D., 377 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“contends the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent on a felony charge of shoplifting pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1805(1), based on his having committed two or more previous shoplifting offenses.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz, 342 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“We note that shoplifting under A.R.S. § 13-1805(1) requires use of an artifice or device, but, like organized retail theft, it is a class four felony.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(A) — 11 cases
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 12 While settling jury instructions in the trial court, Brown argued that, by adding subsection I to § 13-1805, [1] the legislature created a new, substantive offense of "aggravated" shoplifting and requested that the court first instruct the jury on "aggravated shoplifting…”
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner, 413 P.3d 683 (Ariz. 2018).
“Winegardner responds that shoplifting, as codified in § 13-1805, is a unitary offense that may be charged in the disjunctive, using "and/or" to allege conduct covered under any of the statute's subsections.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz, 342 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“We note that shoplifting under A.R.S. § 13-1805(1) requires use of an artifice or device, but, like organized retail theft, it is a class four felony.”
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(A)(1) — 8 cases
Bosworth v. Hon. anagnost/az, 323 P.3d 736 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“The State notes "A.R.S. § 13-1805(A) defines multiple additional ways that the crime of shoplifting can be committed that all differ from larceny.”
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner, 413 P.3d 683 (Ariz. 2018).
“Winegardner responds that shoplifting, as codified in § 13-1805, is a unitary offense that may be charged in the disjunctive, using "and/or" to allege conduct covered under any of the statute's subsections.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(A)(4) — 1 case
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(A)(5) — 3 cases
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
State of Arizona v. Darren Lee Winegardner, 413 P.3d 683 (Ariz. 2018).
“Winegardner responds that shoplifting, as codified in § 13-1805, is a unitary offense that may be charged in the disjunctive, using "and/or" to allege conduct covered under any of the statute's subsections.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(B) — 1 case
State v. Morris, 435 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805(A). ¶12 Here, police had probable cause to believe that Morris had concealed at least one of the store's items in his backpack.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(C) — 5 cases
Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 680 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 13-1805 (emphasis supplied). The trial court was evidently of the view that by the terms of subsection D, reasonable cause, alone, was a defense.”
Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 762 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“The Merchant’s Privilege Under A.R.S. § 13-1805 A.R.S. § 13-1805 grants merchants a privilege to detain suspected shoplifters on their premises under certain circumstances.”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“¶ 21 The court acknowledged the “developing, common law ‘shopkeeper’s privilege,”’ codified in A.R.S. § 13-1805, which provides in part: “A merchant, or his agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(D) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(E) — 1 case
In Re C.D., 377 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“contends the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent on a felony charge of shoplifting pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1805(1), based on his having committed two or more previous shoplifting offenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(F) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(G) — 3 cases
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 12 While settling jury instructions in the trial court, Brown argued that, by adding subsection I to § 13-1805, [1] the legislature created a new, substantive offense of "aggravated" shoplifting and requested that the court first instruct the jury on "aggravated shoplifting…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(H) — 4 cases
State v. Harm, 340 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“§ 13-2409 (same for obstructing criminal investigations), A.R.S. § 13-1805(H) (same for shoplifting), A.”
In Re C.D., 377 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“contends the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent on a felony charge of shoplifting pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1805(1), based on his having committed two or more previous shoplifting offenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1805(I) — 8 cases
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 12 While settling jury instructions in the trial court, Brown argued that, by adding subsection I to § 13-1805, [1] the legislature created a new, substantive offense of "aggravated" shoplifting and requested that the court first instruct the jury on "aggravated shoplifting…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.