Officer who detained woman for shoplifting was not entitled to qualified immunity from (section) 1983 claim

Law Reporter, Dec 1998

Baptiste v. JC Penney Co., 147 F. 3d 1252 (101th Cir. 1998).

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held a police officer who detained a woman for shoplifting was not entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. sec 1983 action.

Here, store security guards detained Baptiste based on a security videotape that showed her pulling a ring out of her shopping bag, comparing the ring to a ring in the store, returning one ring to her bag, and looking for a salesperson while holding the other ring. After a gap in the recording, it then showed Baptiste making a purchase.

The police were then called. Officer Hernholm arrived and viewed the tape. He then searched Baptiste's bag and purse and had her empty her pockets. No stolen merchandise was found. Baptiste explained that she had purchased a ring at another store. She produced the ring and its receipt, as well as the ring she had purchased at the store here and its receipt.

Hernholm then summoned Officer Martin to conduct a pat-down search. Nothing was found, and Baptiste was told she could leave.

Baptiste sued the officers under sec 1983, alleging unreasonable search and seizure. The officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The trial court denied the motion.

Affirming, the Tenth Circuit noted government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under sec 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." When a warrantless arrest is the subject of a sec 1983 claim, the arresting officer is entitled to immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff.

Here, the court concluded, no probable cause existed in light of plaintiff's conduct on the videotape; her explanation; her production of the receipts for the two rings; and the search of her bag, purse, and pockets, which revealed no stolen merchandise.

The court rejected defendants' argument that they could rely on the guards' statements to establish probable cause. Officers may not rely solely on a security guard's allegations when they have before them an exact replication of all the information on which the guard's allegations are based, the court said.

As to Martin, the court noted that an officer called to conduct a search incident to an arrest may rely on the arresting officer's probable cause determination. The trial court found, however, that Martin had made an independent evaluation of probable cause. Although the trial court's resolution of this factual question was improper, the court here found a genuine issue of material fact existed. Plaintiff's Counsel:

Luis A. Corchado, Denver, Colo.

Monte Lynn Scaggs, Colorado Springs, Colo.