Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A store guard used a chokehold on a teenager suspected of stealing a 59-cent item. The court reversed a verdict for the store, holding that the “shopkeeper’s privilege” requires not just reasonable cause, but also a reasonable manner and purpose of detention.
Legal Significance: Establishes that the shopkeeper’s privilege is a three-part test: reasonable cause, proper purpose, and reasonable manner. Reasonable cause alone is not a complete defense to false imprisonment, and the use of force is highly restricted.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ernest Gortarez, 16, and his cousin were in a Smitty’s store. Gortarez picked up a 59-cent vaporizer and asked a clerk if he could pay for it at the front of the store. The clerk, suspicious, followed them. When they left through an unattended checkout aisle, the clerk, not having seen them pay for or discard the item, concluded they had stolen it and alerted security guard Daniel Gibson. In the parking lot, Gibson, without asking any questions or requesting the cousins to stop, immediately seized and began searching the cousin. Outraged, Gortarez protested verbally, then ran around the car and pushed Gibson away. In response, Gibson placed Gortarez in a chokehold, causing injury. The vaporizer was subsequently found inside the store in a basket at the checkout stand where Gortarez had left it. Gortarez sued Smitty’s and Gibson for false imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the statutory shopkeeper’s privilege shield a merchant from liability for false imprisonment and assault when the detention, although based on reasonable cause, is conducted for an improper purpose or in an unreasonable manner involving immediate physical force?
No. The court held that all three elements of the shopkeeper’s privilege—reasonable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat no
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the statutory shopkeeper’s privilege shield a merchant from liability for false imprisonment and assault when the detention, although based on reasonable cause, is conducted for an improper purpose or in an unreasonable manner involving immediate physical force?
Conclusion
This case establishes the shopkeeper's privilege in Arizona as a qualified, three-part Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci
Legal Rule
Under Arizona's shopkeeper's privilege statute, A.R.S. § 13-1805, a merchant's agent may Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Legal Analysis
The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that the shopkeeper's privilege codified in A.R.S. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Arizona’s shopkeeper’s privilege requires three elements: reasonable cause, a proper purpose