## Facts

- Sears security guards stopped Max Koepnick in a mall parking lot after suspecting him of shoplifting a wrench and detained him for about 15 minutes until police arrived.
- After police arrived, Koepnick became involved in an altercation with an officer, was injured, and was handcuffed while the officer investigated.
- The investigation showed Koepnick had receipts for the wrench and other merchandise; a clerk confirmed the sale and explained the wrench had been placed in a stapled small bag inside a larger bag.
- Because the stapled small bag was not found among Koepnick’s possessions in the security room, police and a Sears guard searched Koepnick’s truck in the parking lot; no stolen items were found.
- Police released Koepnick after issuing a disorderly conduct citation; the total detention lasted about 45 minutes.
- Koepnick sued Sears for false arrest and trespass to chattel (among other claims); only those two claims went to the jury.
- The jury awarded Koepnick compensatory and punitive damages on both claims.
- The trial court denied Sears’s JNOV on false arrest but granted Sears a new trial on that claim; it granted Sears’s JNOV on trespass to chattel.
- Koepnick appealed the new-trial order and the JNOV; Sears cross-appealed the denial of JNOV on false arrest.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting Sears a new trial on Koepnick’s false-arrest claim.
2. Whether the trial court erred by granting Sears JNOV on Koepnick’s trespass-to-chattel claim based on the truck search.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying Sears JNOV on the false-arrest claim.

## Decision

- Affirmed the order granting Sears a new trial on the false-arrest claim.
- Affirmed the order denying Sears JNOV on the false-arrest claim (leaving the claim for retrial rather than entering judgment for Sears).
- Affirmed the order granting Sears JNOV on the trespass-to-chattel claim (vacating the jury’s verdict on that claim).

## Legal Principles

- A false-arrest claim arising from a merchant’s detention of a suspected shoplifter turns on whether the merchant had reasonable cause (probable cause) to detain based on facts known at the time of the detention.
- When the material facts bearing on reasonable cause are undisputed, the reasonable-cause question may be resolved as a matter of law; allowing the jury to decide it in that posture can justify a new trial.
- Trespass to chattel requires dispossession or substantial interference with another’s possessory interest, and ordinarily requires proof of actual, compensable harm tied to that interference.
- A brief, police-supervised search of a vehicle during an investigation—without damage, meaningful loss of use, or assertion of dominion inconsistent with the owner’s rights—does not constitute actionable trespass to chattel.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court’s post-verdict rulings: the false-arrest verdict was set aside for a new trial because reasonable cause should not have been submitted to the jury on the undisputed facts, and Sears was entitled to JNOV on trespass to chattel because the truck search did not substantially interfere with Koepnick’s possessory rights or cause compensable harm.


Koepnick v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 158 Ariz. 322, 762 P.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1988)