Flynn V All Niter Convenience Store Center

This case is about an overzealous convenient store clerk who, in his desperate attempt to catch the bad guys, abused and traumatized an innocent store patron. The plaintiff, Richard Flynn, entered The All Niter convenience store one late night in September 2016 to purchase milk. What he expected to be a quick stop on his way home, soon became one of the most humiliating nights of his life when he encountered an officious store clerk, Defendant Mark Schenkly. After developing an unfounded suspicion that Mr. Flynn had stolen a beer from a cooler in the store, Defendant Mark Schenkly made the decision to detain and frisk Mr. Flynn. The Defendant stated that his suspicion that Mr. Flynn was shoplifting was based on a crime alert flier circulated

by police, which warned businesses about the local trend known as “beer yahooing.” He added that Mr. Flynn was wearing a hat and a Packer's jersey like those worn in previous beer yahooing incidents. Although, he later conceded that Mr. Flynn did not match the description in the flyer and did not exhibit the same behaviors as the yahooers.
The defendant was found to have falsely imprisoned Mr. Flynn, but seeks to use the affirmative defense of the shopkeeper’s privilege. In order to successfully assert the affirmative defense of shopkeeper’s privilege, it must be proved that the shopkeeper had reasonable cause to detain the suspect, the detainment was effectuated for a proper purpose, in a reasonable for a reasonable length of time. The shopkeeper’s privilege should be denied because the defendant’s did not satisfy any of the requisite elements for claiming the privilege.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the night of September 29, 2016, the plaintiff, Richard Flynn, entered The All-Niter convenience store to purchase milk, after a night of watching the Packer’s game with friends. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Flynn realized that he had forgotten his wallet in the car, and promptly exited the store to retrieve it. A few moments into his search, Mr. Flynn felt the poke of a blunt object in his back. Expecting to be carjacked, he felt relief when he turned around to find that the person jabbing him in the back was none other than the convenience store clerk, Defendant Mark Schenkly. Mr. Flynn asked the defendant to wait while he looked for his wallet and resumed his search. Within a few moments, it became clear that the Defendant was becoming increasingly agitated with Mr. Flynn as he soon began berate him. Around that same time, Mr. Flynn felt a familiar stab in his lower back. After locating his wallet, Mr. Flynn emerged from his vehicle to discover the cause of the commotion. The defendant flashed his store badge and ordered Mr. Flynn back inside the store. Mr. Flynn’s attempts to explain why he had returned to his car were futile. In response, the defendant accosted him with threats and insults. Fearful that the defendant would make good on his claims, Mr. Flynn complied with the defendant’s commands to re-enter the store.
Once inside, Defendant Mark Schenkly locked the only exit to the store.

Mr. Flynn pleaded for the Defendant to allow him to leave, but the Defendant refused. The Defendant then led Mr. Flynn into small storage room where he proceeded to frisk Mr. Flynn in search of the stolen beer. His search was fruitless. Mr. Flynn made several requests for the Defendant to allow him to use the restroom and to call his wife, but again, the Defendant declined. Afterwards, the Defendant left the room to call his Father, Defendant William Schenkly, told him that he was on his way to the store and advised him to not call the

police.
When he returned to the room, Defendant Mark Schenkly continued to interrogate Mr. Flynn about the recent beer yahooing incidents. Mr. Flynn reiterated that he had not taken anything from the store, but the Defendant was relentless. Eventually, Defendant William Schenkly arrived at the store. Soon after, he entered the storage room where Mr. Flynn was being kept. After discussing the events that occurred that night, Defendant William Schenkly apologized and released Mr. Flynn. The Defendant’s never called the police, nor did they file a complaint with the Tucson Police Department.
ARGUMENT
The Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, are unable to assert the defense of shopkeeper’s privilege.

“Reasonable cause is a defense to a civil or criminal action against … a merchant or an agent or employee of the merchant for false arrest, false or unlawful imprisonment or wrongful detention.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1805(D) (2009). “A merchant, or a merchant's agent or employee, with reasonable cause, may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person who is suspected of shoplifting … for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.” § 13-1805(D). Reasonable cause is only the threshold requirement for invoking the privilege. Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 680 P.2d 807, 813 (Ariz. 1984). If reasonable cause is established, then the court must determine whether the shopkeeper brought about the detainment for the proper purpose and whether the detainment was accomplished in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. Each of these elements must be proved in order for the privilege to apply. Thus, Defendants will only prevail if they are able to establish that Defendant Mark Schenkly had reasonable cause to detain Mr. Flynn, that he effectuated the detainment for a proper purpose, and that he carried out Mr. Flynn’s detainment in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of

time.