AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff visited a store owned by Sally Beauty Supply carrying an eco-friendly canvas shopping tote. Upon entering, there were no signs indicating that shopping totes were prohibited. The Plaintiff placed a can of mousse in her tote to ask a cashier about it but was approached by the assistant manager, accused of shoplifting, and subsequently arrested and charged with multiple offenses after refusing to sign a "no trespass" card (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, James T. Martin, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, September 7, 2011, No. 33,151.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that placing merchandise in a personal shopping tote, without more, does not constitute "willful concealment" of merchandise and challenged the application of a statutory presumption of intent to shoplift to the merchant's conditional privilege to detain (paras 2-3, 5).
• Defendants: Asserted immunity from liability under NMSA 1978, Sections 30-16-22 and 30-16-23, arguing that the Plaintiff's act of placing the mousse in the shopping bag constituted willful concealment of merchandise, giving them probable cause to detain the Plaintiff and immunity from the Plaintiff's claims (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether a customer who places merchandise into a reusable, personal canvas shopping bag, without more, has “willfully concealed” merchandise (para 1).
• Whether a statutory presumption of intent applicable to a criminal prosecution for shoplifting also applies to the merchant’s conditional privilege to detain a customer (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, disagreeing with the lower court's findings on both legal issues presented (para 32).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court clarified the conditional privilege merchants have to detain customers suspected of shoplifting, emphasizing the need for probable cause based on a reasonable belief of willful concealment of merchandise (paras 8-14).
  The court determined that "willfully concealed" requires more than merely putting merchandise out of sight, suggesting that there must be circumstances indicating a purpose adverse to the store owner's right to be paid for the merchandise (paras 15-19).
  The court concluded that the statutory presumption of intent to shoplift, applicable in criminal prosecutions, does not apply to the merchant's conditional privilege to detain a customer. The inclusion of a probable cause requirement in the merchant's privilege statute was seen as indicative of the legislature's intent not to apply the presumption in such civil contexts (paras 20-31).