O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 51-7-61 (2019)

Activation of antishoplifting device as constituting probable cause for detention; notice of such device to be posted

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘antishoplifting or inventory control device’’ means a mechanism or other device designed and operated for the purpose of detecting the removal of specially marked or tagged merchandise from a mercantile establishment or similar enclosure or from a protected area within such an enclosure.

(b) In the case of a mercantile establishment utilizing an antishoplifting or inventory control device, the automatic activation of the device as a result of a person exiting the establishment or a protected area within the establishment shall constitute reasonable cause for the detention of the person so exiting by the owner or operator of the establishment or by an agent or employee of the owner or operator. Each detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.

(c) This Code section shall apply only with respect to mercantile establishments in which a notice has been posted in a clear and visible manner advising patrons of the establishment that an antishoplifting or inventory control device is being utilized in the establishment.

History

(Ga. L. 1979, p. 762, § 1.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Shoplifting, § 16-8-14.

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant

to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2000, a colon was deleted following ‘‘the term’’ in subsection (a).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure by employee to deactivate antishoplifting tag. - It makes no difference to ‘‘reasonable cause,’’ as used in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-61, whether or not negligence on the part of a store employee in failing to deactivate a special tag on merchandise set off an antishoplifting device. What matters is whether the method and time of detention were reasonable within the statutory limitations. Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 184 Ga. App. 98, 360 S.E.2d 649 (1987); Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 328, 477 S.E.2d 631 (1996).

Observations of store manager constitute visual ‘‘inquiry.’’ - When store manager, after the antishoplifting alarm had sounded, observed the customer remove from the customer’s pocket and then place on a rack an item of merchandise for which the plaintiff had not paid and with which the plaintiff had attempted to leave the store, such observations constituted a visual ‘‘inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation’’ of the antishoplifting device. Arnold v. Eckerd Drugs of Ga., Inc., 183 Ga. App. 211, 358 S.E.2d 632 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Admissibility of defendant’s rules or instructions for dealing with shoplifters, in action for false imprison-

ment or malicious prosecution, 31 ALR3d 705.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1987–1996 · leading case: Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 360 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 360 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 16× “Eckerd denied liability and, after discovery, moved for summary judgment on the basis of no liability because OCGA § 51-7-61 gave it probable cause to stop Mrs.”
Arnold v. Eckerd Drugs of Georgia, Inc., 358 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “See OCGA § 51-7-61 (c). As she approached the antishoplifting device, the alarm sounded.”
Mitchell v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 477 S.E.2d 631 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 51-7-61 (b). Nevertheless, “[e]ach detention shall be made only in a reasonable manner and only for a reasonable period of time sufficient for any inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activation of the device.”
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.