Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
O.C.G.A. § 51-7-61 — Activation of antishoplifting device as constituting probable cause for detention; notice of such device to be posted | Georgia Code
O.C.G.A. § 51-7-61 (2018) Copy Cite Official Site Syfertize CourtListener Scholar Amendments

TITLE 51 TORTS

Section 7. False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Abusive Litigation, 51-7-1 through 51-7-85.

ARTICLE 4 DETENTION OR ARREST ON SUSPICION OF SHOPLIFTING OR FILM PIRACY

51-7-61. Activation of antishoplifting device as constituting probable cause for detention; notice of such device to be posted.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

(Ga. L. 1979, p. 762, § 1.)

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 imprisonment or malicious prosecution, 31 A.L.R.3d 705.

Database error: SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 8 attempt to write a readonly database

This Georgia Code resource is curated by this site's author, a personal injury and workers' compensation attorney admitted in Georgia (State Bar of Georgia No. 881027, since 2006) and Florida. Attorney Syfert regularly works with Title 51 in the context of Georgia personal injury and tort claims and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida and South Georgia. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.