If any person
triggers an alarm or a theft detection device as defined in section 18-4-417 (2) or conceals upon
his person or otherwise carries away any unpurchased goods, wares, or merchandise held or
owned by any store or mercantile establishment, the merchant or any employee thereof or any
peace officer, acting in good faith and upon probable cause based upon reasonable grounds
therefor, may detain and question such person, in a reasonable manner for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the person is guilty of theft. Such questioning of a person by a merchant,
merchant's employee, or peace or police officer does not render the merchant, merchant's
employee, or peace officer civilly or criminally liable for slander, false arrest, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or unlawful detention.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 429, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-4-407. L. 2001: Entire section
amended, p. 512, § 1, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
People v. Berry, 703 P.2d 613 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
People v. Berry, 703 P.2d 613 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “See § 18-4-407, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Defendant's contention concerning the reswearing of the jury goes to an irregularity that was harmless at most.”
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 945 N.E.2d 295 (Mass. 2011).
“§ 13-1805 (Q (Thomson Reuters 2010); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-4-407 (West 2004); Nev.”
Gonzales v. HERRIS, 542 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1975).
· cites it 3× “In 1972, a year after this incident this statute was repealed and re-enacted and is now section 18-4-407, C.R.S. 1973. We granted certiorari on the issue of whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s refusal to grant Gonzales a continuance.”
Goodboe v. Gabriella, 663 P.2d 1051 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “2d 842 (1975) (interpreting the good faith provisions in the “shopkeeper's privilege” statute, § 18-4-407, C.R.S.1973). Therefore, it was for the jury to decide whether these defendants acted in good faith.”
Montgomery v. Best Buy (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “See § 18-4-407, C.R.S. 2025.2 2 The shopkeeper’s privilege offers “protection from .”
Montgomery v. Lore (D. Colo. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-407 (2016). defendant) intervened to protect the other two defendants.”
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.