Brooklyn woman sues Target store for $65 million over ‘false’ shoplifting claim

A Brooklyn woman filed a $65 million lawsuit against a Target store for allegedly falsely arresting and publicly humiliating her before being detained for hours at a local precinct.

In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on 1 October 2025, the complainant named the city of New York, the New York City Police Department, NYPD officers, Target Corporation and a Target “asset-protection” employee as defendants.

Here's what happened

According to a Newsweek report, the incident occurred on 3 October 2024 at Target’s Kings Plaza store in Brooklyn.

Target “guest advocate,” 22-year-old Angel Tepizila, reportedly accused plaintiff Sheila Lee of an unspecified wrongdoing and called the New York Police Department (NYPD).

Tepizila is a Hunter College student who has worked at Target since June 2022. According to his LinkedIn profile, Tepizila’s duties include assisting guests at registers or self-checkout, answering questions at the service desk, and completing order pickups.

Lee has claimed that while she was “lawfully and peacefully” inside the Target store, Tepizila “wrongfully accosted, kidnapped, assaulted, battered, detained, arrested, [and] imprisoned” her.

She said that the store then allegedly “importuned the NYPD” to arrest her, leading to her being handcuffed “in the open presence of the general public.”

Lee said the arrest and prosecution were based on “falsified information” attributed to the retailer. She said, in the complaint, that Lee was processed and held “for many hours,” despite her pleas and physical evidence she said showed her innocence.

The charges were “dismissed in her favour” on 10 December 2024, the filing said.

Why does it matter?

According to a Newsweek report, the case tests the handoff between private retail security and police in New York. It raises questions about how much independent verification officers must do before making an arrest triggered by a store accusation and how far a retailer’s “shopkeeper’s privilege” reasonably extends.

By alleging municipal training and policy failure, the suit could force discovery into NYPD practices and clarify city liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978).

The case also spotlights reputational harm from public detentions and the role of body-worn and in-store cameras in quickly resolving alleged thefts.

With a $65 million demand against both a Fortune 500 retailer and the city, the case’s outcome could shape arrest protocols, asset-protection training and taxpayer exposure.