CHARGED WITH CRIME?  CALL TODAY TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 303-698-1603
MCCLUSKEY LAW ​ OFFICE

​CRIMINAL DEFENSE 303-698-1603



MCCLUSKEY LAW OFFICE is a criminal defense law office dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals charged with crimes.  M. E. McCluskey, Esq. is available to represent clients charged with  FELONIES and or MISDEMEANORS in Arvada, Aurora, Bennett, Beyers, Boulder, Breckenridge, Brighton, Broomfield, Castle Rock, Centennial, Cherry Creek, Denver, Edgewater, Engelwood, Federal Heights, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Fort Morgan Greeley, Greenwood Village, Frederick, Highlands Ranch, Kiowa, Lakewood, Lakeside, Littleton, Lochbuie, Lodo, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, Northglenn, Parker, Platteville, Sheridan, Strasburg, Thornton, Telluride, Vail, Watkins, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, Windsor, Front Range communities and ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, CLEAR CREEK, DENVER, DOUGLAS, EL PASO, GILPIN, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, and WELD counties.

Concealment of unpurchased 

goods in a store.

Petty Offense Theft,less than $50.00

Unauthorized Use of a Financial Transaction Device

Municipal and state shoplifting charges

MCCLUSKEY LAW OFFICE is a criminal defense law office dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals charged with crimes.  M. E. McCluskey, Esq. is available to represent clients charged with felony THEFT and/or misdemeanor ​THEFT in Arvada, Aurora, Bennett, Beyers, Boulder, Breckenridge, Brighton, Broomfield, Castle Rock, Centennial, Cherry Creek, Denver, Edgewater, Engelwood, Federal Heights, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Fort Morgan Greeley, Greenwood Village, Frederick, Highlands Ranch, Kiowa, Lakewood, Lakeside, Littleton, Lochbuie, Lodo, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, Northglenn, Parker, Platteville, Sheridan, Strasburg, Thornton, Telluride, Vail, Watkins, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, Windsor, Front Range communities and ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, CLEAR CREEK, DENVER, DOUGLAS, EL PASO, GILPIN, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, and WELD counties.

Substantial changes were enacted in 2013 by the Colorado General Assembly HB13-1360.§18-4-401. Theft laws underwent significant changes regarding the dollar value of the stolen item determining the class of offense.  For example, a Class 2 Felony is charged when the value of the stolen item is one million dollars or more.Under 18-4-401(2) Theft is:(b) A  CLASS 1 PETTY OFFENSE    the value of the thing involved is less than $50.00 (c) A  CLASS 3 MISDEMEANOR      the value of the thing involved is $50.00 or more but less than $300.00(d) A  CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR     the value of the thing involved is $300.00 or more but less than $750.00(e) A  CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR     the value of the thing involved is $750.00 or more but less than $2,000.00​(f) A  CLASS 6 FELONY if the value of the thing involved is $2,000.00 or more but less than $5,000.00(g) A CLASS 5 FELONY if the value of the thing involved is $5,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00(h) A CLASS 4 FELONY if the value of the thing involved is $20,000.00 or more but less than $100,000.00(i) A  CLASS 3 FELONY if the value of the thing involved is $100,000.00 or more but less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS(j) A  CLASS 2 FELONY if the value of the thing involved is ONE MILLION DOLLARS or more.

CREDIT CARDS  Street value is a reflection of the purchasing power of a particular credit card. Accordingly, the authorized line of credit on the card or its "floor limit", i.e., the value of a purchase that could be completed without the necessity of obtaining express authorization from the credit card company, is also an objective measure of a card's value.
People v. Miller, 37 Colo. App. 294, 549 P.2d 1092 (1976), aff'd, 193 Colo. 415, 566 P.2d 1059 (1977).  Rewards offered by the issuer of credit cards for the return of lost or stolen cards may also constitute an objective measure of the value of the card. Evidence of the dollar amount which may be purchased by using the credit card without card company approval provides anobjective means of evaluating the illegitimate market value of credit cards.​​SHOPLIFTING ​Municipal courts handle thecrime of shoplifting of articles of relatively small value, goods not exceeding $100.00 in value.  This type of theft is also handled by state authorities in state courts.  When a defendant allegedly takesarticles valued over $100.00, the ordinance cannot be constitutionally applied to petty theft. Quintana v. Edgewater Municipal Court, 179 Colo. 90, 498 P.2d 931 (1972).  Sometimes a person enters a store to pick up a few items;picks up more items than that person had planned, that person may put some of the items in a coat pocket to avoiddropping the property.  This person likely had the intent to remove the item once at the cash register.  However, store security now has the right to detain that person, call the police, and have that person charged or arrested.​§18-4-406.

CONCEALMENT​ OF GOODS  §18-4-407. Questioning of person suspected of theft without liability
​If any person triggers an alarm or a theft detection device as defined in §18-4-417(2) or conceals upon his person or otherwise carries away any unpurchased goods, wares, or merchandise held or owned by any store or mercantile establishment, the merchant or any employee thereof or any peace officer, acting in good faith and upon probable cause based upon reasonable grounds therefor, may detain and question such person, in a reasonable manner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person is guilty of theft. Such questioning of a person by a merchant, merchant's employee, or peace or police officer does not render the merchant, merchant's employee, or peace officer civilly or criminally liable for slander, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or unlawful detention.  Actions of store are not actions of state. The statute permitting the detention of suspected shoplifters by the store management merely grants a license under state law to detain a suspect; it does not invest the individual with the authority of state law. The statute is intended merely to license a shopkeeper to undertake self-help to protect his property; it does not vest him with the authority of the state. The actions of the storekeepers in pursuit of their own personal interests cannot be considered to have been taken under color of state law under the civil rights act.
Warren v. Cummings, 303 F. Supp. 803 (D. Colo. 1969).​


If any person willfully conceals unpurchased goods, wares, or merchandise owned or held by and offered or displayed for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment, whether the concealment be on his own person or otherwise and whether on or off the premises of said store or mercantile establishment, such concealment constitutes prima facie evidence that the person intended to commit the crime of theft.

THEFT