Arizona Senate votes to allow citizens to arrest shoplifters, sparking safety concerns

The way a Tucson business coalition sees it, the explosion of retail theft requires something more than store owners waiting for police to arrive.

“Our businesses, our assets were just being destroyed,’’ said Josh Jacobsen, a member of the Tucson Crime Free Coalition of more than 7,000 business owners and others. “And there’s just no relief.”

On their behalf, Tucson Republican Sen. Justine Wadsack is proposing to expand existing state laws on citizen arrests to allow anyone to make an arrest for shoplifting, regardless of the value of the items being stolen. The Arizona Senate approved the measure this week.

Pima County Attorney Laura Conover thinks it’s a terrible idea because people could get hurt — including nearby shoppers.

“All too often, what starts as a little scuffle is turning into a fatal incident because firearms are far too present, they’re within reach,’’ Conover said.

Current law does allow for a “citizen’s arrest’’ when someone is witnessing a felony. In the case of theft, that means a value of more than $2,000.

Theft of less than that amount is a misdemeanor. In those cases, the law allows an individual to make an arrest only when there is a “breach of the peace,’’ generally defined as disorderly or dangerous conduct.

Wadsack’s Senate Bill 1613 would extend that permission to allow individuals to make an arrest in a case of “a theft of property from a retail store.’’

Approved by the Republican-led Senate on a 16-14 party-line vote, the measure would cover not just the store owner or employee but any “private person.’’

Conover said people who go into a store to steal something, often with the idea of selling it to get some cash, are “not thinking clearly.’’

Having a private citizen try to take them into custody can lead to lots of people getting hurt, including the shoplifter, the person making the arrest, and anyone else nearby, Conover told Capitol Media Services.

Conover said that’s not just her view. She said it is shared by Tucson Police Chief Chad Kasmar.

Jacobsen disagrees, saying this kind of legislation is necessary to deal with an increasing problem of retail theft, not only in Tucson but throughout the state.

“I think the people are fed up with watching this happen right in front of them,’’ Jacobsen said in an interview.

Jacobsen, who owns a Lucky Wishbone franchise, said the business coalition got involved because of how the problem is affecting them.

Part of the problem is an insufficient number of police officers, he said. But he also takes issue with Conover, saying her office does not prosecute cases, even in felonies.

“The community has to have resources or means to protect themselves if we can’t get law enforcement here, if we can’t get the results we need when our assets and livelihoods are being destroyed,’’ Jacobsen said.

Conover countered that prosecutions are taking place. She said they don’t require anyone to try to detain a shoplifter.

“We have an extremely high charge rate of organized retail theft because 90% of this is on camera,’’ she said.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“Let the surveillance cameras do their job safely, hands off, ‘’ allowing authorities to identify and issue warrants for serial offenders, Conover said. “And that’s the safe way to get it done.’’

The county attorney said having individual citizens step in is just too unpredictable.

“If a person who is perhaps quite likely not thinking clearly, stealing food or property to sell … they’re not exercising judgment,’’ she said. “The last thing we want to is have people confront them instead of waiting for the police.’’

The “proliferation of firearms’’ only makes things worse, said Conover, an elected Democrat.

“What starts out to be, ‘Oh, I’m just going to hold the person until the police come’ can end up being fatal,’’ she said. “And that’s why we’re out there counseling, ‘Don’t do it. Let it go.’”

Jacobsen, however, said there are times when individual intervention is appropriate.

“Let’s say I’m in a sporting goods store and I see someone do this,’’ he said. “If I see them grab everything, yeah, I’ll probably detain you and sit on you until the cops get there.’’

Jacobsen said the decision to intercede or not is not automatic. “I’m going to size them up’’ and determine the risk, he said.

But not doing anything in any situation is not a reasonable alternative, he said, even if the person doing the shoplifting is not using judgment.

“Should we just let that person go because they’re trying to go get drugs, and this is just a situation where they have no other recourse?’’ he asked.

Also, even just changing the law to allow anyone to nab shoplifters may have a deterrent effect, Jacobsen said.

“Word does travel on the street,’’ he said. If would-be thieves understand that they have to fear not only the police but everyone else in the store, “maybe people would start thinking twice about it.’’

Sen. Anna Hernandez, D-Phoenix, who voted against the bill when it was approved in the Senate, said there are other problems with the measure. Those start with the question of empowering untrained people to decide when a crime like retail theft is taking place, she said.

“SB 1613 opens up potentially dangerous interaction between anyone who may or may not be intending to steal from a retail store and a bystander who is observing what they think is theft,’’ Hernandez said.

Then there’s the dual risk to the person making the arrest, she said.

“It does not give a person immunity in a situation if the suspected individual is injured,’’ she said. “And it could very easily cause the person who is intervening to be the one that’s harmed.’’

The measure now goes to the House.