(1) A person commits
the crime of theft by shoplifting when he or she, with the intent of appropriating goods or merchandise to his
or her own use without paying for the goods or merchandise or to
deprive the owner of possession of such goods or merchandise or its
retail value, in whole or in part, does any of the following:
(a) Conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise
of any store or retail establishment;
(b) Alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or
merchandise of any store or retail establishment;
(c) Transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail
establishment from one container to another;
(d) Interchanges the label or price tag from one item of a good or of merchandise with
a label or price tag for another item of a
good or of merchandise;
(e) Causes the cash register or other sales recording device
to reflect less than the retail price of the goods or merchandise; or
(f) Alters,
bypasses, disables, shields, or removes any security or alarm device attached
to or housing any goods or merchandise of any store, including the use or
possession of a security device countermeasure as defined in section 28-511.03,
prior to purchase of the goods or merchandise.
(2)
In any prosecution for theft by shoplifting, photographs of the shoplifted
property may be accepted as prima facie evidence as to the identity of the
property. Such photograph shall be accompanied by a written statement containing
the following:
(a) A description of the property;
(b) The name of the owner or owners of the property;
(c) The time, date, and location where the shoplifting occurred;
(d) The time and date the photograph was taken;
(e) The name of the photographer; and
(f) Verification by the arresting officer.
The purpose of this subsection is to allow the owner or owners
of shoplifted property the use of such property during pending criminal prosecutions.
Prior to allowing the use of the shoplifted property as provided
in this section, legal counsel for the alleged shoplifter shall have a reasonable
opportunity to inspect and appraise the property and may file a motion for
retention of the property, which motion shall be granted if there is any reasonable
basis for believing that the photographs and accompanying affidavit may be
misleading.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992).
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 20× “§ 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses), which is a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1989) of the Nebraska Criminal Code, that provides in relevant part: (1) A person commits the crime of theft by shoplifting when he or she, with the intent of…”
State v. Ybarra, 609 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 18× “INTRODUCTION Jimmy Ybarra was convicted by a jury of shoplifting merchandise valued at $787, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1995), a Class IV felony.”
State v. Sexton, 482 N.W.2d 567 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 5× “The defendant did not present any evidence, and she was found guilty by the jury of shoplifting merchandise valued at $2,454.”
State v. Orduna, 550 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-511.01 and 28-518(4) and (6) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 232 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Moore, was convicted in county court of theft by shoplifting, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01 (l)(a) (Reissue 1989), and fined $150.”
State v. Reznicek, 995 N.W.2d 204 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 2× “BACKGROUND On October 8, 2021, Reznicek was charged in Douglas County Court with theft by shoplifting ($0 to $500), first offense, a Class II misdemeanor, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-511.01 and 28-518(4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Sanders, 733 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “CR05-308 charging Sanders with theft by shoplifting in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1995) for taking possession of goods or merchandise of the Hy-Vee located at 6919 O Street on February 27.”
State v. Bell, 493 N.W.2d 339 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Bell, was convicted by a jury of shoplifting an item worth less than $100, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Jackson, 544 N.W.2d 379 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-511.01 (Reissue 1989) and 28-518 (Cum.”
State v. Rubek, 653 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d 356 (1996) (pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-511.01 and 28-518 (Reissue 1995), any second or subsequent conviction of theft or shoplifting enhances punishment from misdemeanor to Class IV felony).”
State v. Schwab, 458 N.W.2d 459 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Schwab, was adjudged guilty of theft by shoplifting, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1989), and of theft by receiving stolen property, in violation of Neb.”
State v. Richard, 346 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 1984).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-201 (Reissue 1979)), or a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat § 28-511.01(1) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01(1) — 4 cases
State v. Ybarra, 609 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
“INTRODUCTION Jimmy Ybarra was convicted by a jury of shoplifting merchandise valued at $787, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1995), a Class IV felony.”
State v. Richard, 346 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 1984).
“§ 28-201 (Reissue 1979)), or a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat § 28-511.01(1) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01(2) — 1 case
State v. Garza, 487 N.W.2d 551 (Neb. 1992).
“§ 28-518 (Reissue 1989) (grades of theft offenses), which is a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1989) of the Nebraska Criminal Code, that provides in relevant part: (1) A person commits the crime of theft by shoplifting when he or she, with the intent of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511.01(a) — 1 case
State v. Ybarra, 609 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
“INTRODUCTION Jimmy Ybarra was convicted by a jury of shoplifting merchandise valued at $787, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-511.01 (Reissue 1995), a Class IV felony.”
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.