A federal judge has declined to grant immunity to an Aurora officer who allegedly detained a man and seized his property unlawfully, one of numerous lawsuits William Montgomery has filed in a long-running “sting” operation involving retail security personnel.

Montgomery’s litigation stems from a series of encounters with roughly the same pattern: He enters a big box store, pays for merchandise, does not show his receipt when asked and then files suit after security detains and investigates him. While the defendants characterized his tactics as intentional baiting of security officers, Montgomery argued to the court that he only cares about avoiding unlawful searches.

“In all of Plaintiff’s interactions with store employees and/or police,” Montgomery wrote in defense of his actions, “he does nothing more than a) go shopping for items (as all shopkeepers know customers do), b) purchase them at any available counter (as all shopkeepers know customers do), c) leave the store without bagging them (as all shopkeepers know customers do …), and d) refuse to show his receipt on the way out (as all shopkeepers know customers do).”

On March 9, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued another decision in one of Montgomery’s challenges, in which he found Montgomery had credibly alleged Officer Travis Lore violated his rights when leaving an Aurora Walmart.

According to Montgomery’s lawsuit, he entered the Walmart on the night of Sept. 17, 2019 and bought two packages of cleaning wipes. At the time, his pockets contained a pair of recreational vehicle lights from a previous shopping trip, which he did not take out. Upon checking out and exiting the store, Lore allegedly stopped Montgomery near his vehicle and asked for Montgomery’s receipt.

Montgomery declined to show it and instead put the wipes in his pockets. Lore escorted him back into the store, patted him down and allegedly acknowledged Montgomery had no weapons on him. Lore removed the wipes from Montgomery’s pockets and subsequently informed Montgomery he would issue a shoplifting citation. Lore later removed the RV lights from Montgomery’s pockets and held onto them.

Lore and other officers who were present for the investigation then let Montgomery go. The next day, Lore allegedly called Montgomery to tell him the charges would be dismissed and he could retrieve his property from the police department.

Montgomery sued Lore for multiple violations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, Montgomery claimed his forced movement from the parking lot back into the store, Lore’s confiscation of the wipes, Lore’s confiscation of the RV lights, the pat-down search and the prolonged detention all amounted to violations.

Montgomery’s lawsuit against Lore was one of 10 he filed in federal court since 2020. He also pursued multiple cases in state court against Walmart, making similar claims about being stopped by security personnel. An Arapahoe County judge’s order dismissing those lawsuits described how Montgomery had told an officer he “stings” the stores in order to sue for false arrest.

“Montgomery entered a Walmart store with the intent to and then actually acted in a manner intended to provoke Walmart employees into believing he was concealing property of the store, which he knew would lead to being detained and asked for his receipts,” District Court Judge Peter F. Michaelson wrote in February 2022. “Not only was Montgomery’s conduct sufficient to cause the Walmart employees to believe that his intent was to commit a crime, but he specifically intended that result happen.”

Some of Montgomery’s federal cases have met a comparable fate. On March 3, Brimmer dismissed another of Montgomery’s lawsuits stemming from his arrest at a Denver Walmart. Last April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld the dismissal of similar litigation against a Commerce City police officer.

Initially, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty recommended dismissing Montgomery’s five claims against Lore. The officer asserted qualified immunity, which shields government employees from civil liability unless they violate a person’s clearly-established legal rights. Typically, there must be a prior court decision finding an officer acted unreasonably under similar circumstances in order for qualified immunity not to apply.

“Plaintiff’s actions in this case would indicate to the reasonable person he may be shoplifting,” Hegarty wrote in August. “The Court finds that Defendant had reasonable suspicion to remove both items from Plaintiff’s person, and therefore should enjoy qualified immunity.”

Montgomery disputed some of Hegarty’s conclusions and asked Brimmer to overrule them. Brimmer agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis to some extent, namely that Lore acted reasonably when he directed Montgomery back to the store, patted him down, and confiscated the wipes after Montgomery walked out of the store and refused to show a receipt.

However, Brimmer sided with Montgomery on the seizure of the RV lights in his pocket. Based on the allegations, Lore did not have probable cause to believe the lights were stolen merchandise. Brimmer found Montgomery’s extended detention to investigate the RV lights was similarly problematic.

Lore “lacked reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiff for the RV lights. As the Court previously held, there are no allegations in the complaint indicating that defendant had any reason to believe that the objects in plaintiff’s pants pockets were stolen merchandise when defendant conducted the pat down,” wrote Brimmer.

He declined to grant Lore qualified immunity for the officer’s investigation of Montgomery’s RV lights.

Montgomery told Colorado Politics he has shopped at Walmart hundreds of times with no issue, but he sued over the handful of occasions that resulted in detention.

“Literally every time before I went shopping I began recording on my phone,” he said. “On all the situations where nothing happened, it was just some mundane encounter.”

The case is Montgomery v. Lore.