Orem City v. Santos
2013 UT App 155
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- On July 16, 2010, Costco employees observed Elba Santos place items behind a diaper bag under a stroller and suspected retail theft.
- Employees escorted Santos to the store office, questioned her about unpurchased merchandise, and searched her purse and stroller.
- Employees requested Santos’s ID, contacted Orem City Police, and handed Santos over to an officer when police arrived.
- Santos was charged with retail theft and moved to suppress her written and verbal statements made to Costco employees, arguing the employees were state agents and her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were implicated.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; Santos appealed, challenging only the legal conclusion that the employees were not state actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private store employees acted as state agents when detaining and questioning Santos | Santos: Costco employees were state actors because Utah statutes authorize merchant detentions and thus amount to governmental encouragement/acquiescence | State/Costco: Statutory authorization to detain is not enough; employees acted to protect store assets and pursue independent business purposes | Court: Employees were not state actors under the Walther two‑part test; suppression denied |
| Whether government knew of or acquiesced in the private search/detention | Santos: Utah law giving merchants detention authority makes employee conduct quasi‑law enforcement, implying government acquiescence | State: No evidence police knew of or acquiesced prior to employees’ independent investigation and only contacted police after detaining Santos | Court: Mere statutory authorization insufficient; no evidence of government knowledge/acquiescence |
| Whether employees’ intent was primarily to assist law enforcement rather than private interests | Santos: Employees routinely require completion of forms to promote criminal prosecution, showing intent to aid government | State: Forms also serve training, recordkeeping, civil-defense, and asset‑protection purposes; trial court found primary purpose was protecting Costco assets | Court: Employees’ protection of store assets is a legitimate independent purpose — not acting solely to further law enforcement |
| Whether statements obtained by private employees must be suppressed as government action | Santos: Statements obtained by alleged state agents must be suppressed under Fourth/Fifth Amendments | State: No state action; constitutional suppression inapplicable | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed — no state action shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981) (two‑part test for when private party acts as government agent)
- State v. Watts, 750 P.2d 1219 (Utah 1988) (private party state‑action analysis and reliance on Walther)
- State v. Koury, 824 P.2d 474 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (burden on objecting party to establish agency relationship)
- State v. Ellingsworth, 966 P.2d 1220 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (private‑party intent must be to assist government, not an independent purpose)