Colorado Shopkeeper’s Privilege: What It Is, When Security Can Act, and the Legal Limits

Colorado’s Shopkeeper’s Privilege is a statutory protection that allows merchants—and those acting on their behalf, including store employees and contracted security—to temporarily detain and question a person suspected of theft without automatically incurring civil or criminal liability. The privilege exists to let retailers protect property while balancing the rights of the individual.

This authority is real, but it is narrow, fact-specific, and heavily dependent on reasonableness. When security exceeds those limits, liability exposure increases quickly.

The Statutory Basis: C.R.S. § 18-4-407 (Shopkeeper’s Privilege)

Colorado codifies Shopkeeper’s Privilege in C.R.S. § 18-4-407, titled “Questioning of person suspected of theft without liability.”

Under this statute, a merchant or employee may detain and question a person when:

The person activates a theft detection device, or
The person conceals or carries away unpurchased merchandise,

and the merchant or employee is acting:

In good faith
On probable cause based on reasonable grounds
In a reasonable manner

When those elements are met, the statute provides protection from claims such as false arrest, false imprisonment, slander, malicious prosecution, or unlawful detention.

The statute does not authorize punishment, excessive force, or prolonged detention. It authorizes only what is reasonably necessary to determine whether theft occurred.

Case Law Guidance: Montgomery v. Walmart and Other Colorado Decisions

Montgomery v. Walmart (Colorado Court of Appeals)

In Montgomery v. Walmart, a customer repeatedly refused receipt checks and alleged unlawful detention. The court ultimately ruled in Walmart’s favor, reinforcing that not every stop or delay constitutes false imprisonment and that courts examine the totality of circumstances, including the manner, duration, and justification for the contact.

The case highlights a critical operational point: receipt refusal alone is a legally risky basis for detention unless supported by additional theft indicators and store policy.

J.S. Dillon & Sons Stores Co. v. Carrington

The Colorado Supreme Court has made clear that Shopkeeper’s Privilege can apply even when the detained person turns out to be innocent, so long as the merchant acted in good faith and based on reasonable grounds. Otherwise, the statute would be meaningless.

Gonzales v. Harris

Colorado courts have also emphasized that reasonableness is often a question of fact, meaning it may be decided by a jury. This makes professionalism, restraint, and documentation essential for security operations.

When Security Can Act Under Shopkeeper’s Privilege

Security acting as an agent of the merchant may lawfully detain a subject when there are specific, articulable facts indicating retail theft, such as:

Direct observation of concealment
Passing points of sale with unpaid merchandise
Alarm activation tied to the individual
Reliable, real-time information from store staff or loss prevention

A lawful detention should be:

Brief
Purpose-driven (confirm or dispel theft suspicion)
Non-punitive
Professional and controlled

Once suspicion is resolved, the detention must end.

Detention vs. Arrest: C.R.S. § 16-3-201 (Citizen’s Arrest)

Shopkeeper’s Privilege authorizes detention and questioning, not an automatic arrest.

Under C.R.S. § 16-3-201, a private person (including a security guard) may make a citizen’s arrest only when:

A crime has been or is being committed in their presence

This is a much higher legal threshold than a shopkeeper detention. Many retail theft stops should remain investigatory detentions, not arrests, unless the statutory requirements are clearly met.

Handcuffing and Use of Force: C.R.S. § 18-1-707(7)

C.R.S. § 18-1-707(7) governs the use of force by a private person making an arrest.

Key points:

A private person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force only if the arrest is lawful under § 16-3-201
The offense must have occurred in the person’s presence
Deadly force is not authorized except in self-defense or defense of others against imminent deadly force

Handcuffing is legally considered force. Even non-deadly force must be justified, reasonable, and proportionate. From a liability standpoint, unnecessary handcuffing during retail theft incidents is one of the fastest ways to trigger civil litigation.

Practical Limits and Risk Areas for Security

Common mistakes that defeat Shopkeeper’s Privilege include:

Detaining based on mere suspicion or profiling
Turning the detention into punishment or humiliation
Using force when compliance could be safely achieved without it
Detaining after suspicion has been resolved
Acting outside post orders or company policy

Courts evaluate not only whether security could act, but how they acted.

Q&A: Colorado Shopkeeper’s Privilege

What is Shopkeeper’s Privilege in Colorado?
It is the statutory authority allowing merchants to temporarily detain and question suspected shoplifters under defined, reasonable conditions.

Can security detain someone for shoplifting?
Yes, when acting for the merchant and when the detention meets the requirements of C.R.S. § 18-4-407.

Does the subject have to be guilty?
No. The privilege can apply even if the person is later found innocent, as long as the detention was reasonable and in good faith.

Can a security guard arrest someone?
Only under the citizen’s arrest statute, C.R.S. § 16-3-201, when the crime occurs in the guard’s presence.

Is handcuffing allowed?
Only when legally justified, reasonable, necessary, and consistent with policy. Handcuffing significantly increases liability risk.

How long can someone be detained?
Only as long as reasonably necessary to confirm or dispel the theft suspicion.

Looking for Professional Security Guard Services in Colorado?
Work with a licensed security company that understands Colorado law, private-property authority, and proper arrest procedures.

Contact us to request a security quote

Related Articles:

Legal Disclaimer (PGSS LLC):
This information is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations can change, and local, state, federal, and municipal requirements may vary. Always consult qualified legal counsel regarding specific legal questions. Patrol Guard Security Services LLC assumes no liability for actions taken based on this content.

Patrol Guard Security Services