Talk:Citizen's arrest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizen's arrest is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] assessments

Aside from the gaps mentioned below, the lack of references and perhaps a history of the devealopment of a citizens arrest legality wise hold this to a sart class for the moment.--SGGH 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WEl i think this whole dilema is stupid Is it possible to do one in Scotland? Maccoinnich 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably - I'll get round to finding the scottish laws regarding citizen's arrests and also update the England and Wales section for the amendments made by SOCPA 2005. Barry m 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The external Yahoo link at the bottom does not actually describe how to make a citizen's arrest, contrary to the article title. The link in the Yahoo article that supposedly points to the citizen's arrest guidelines is broken. -- Anonymous 17:27, 19 Decemeber 2005 (CST)

What are the rights of the accused if arrested by a non-police officer? For example, is any statement made to a civilian inadmissable in court of not proceeded by a Miranda warning (memorized from Law and order re-runs)?

In the UK the PACE caution is only required of persons with a duty to enforce legislation (can include local government officers, fire officers or even store detectives). Esthameian 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there any circumstances that allow a citizen's arrest to be performed upon a law enforcement officer? -- Brian Adams, 21:51, 12 April 2006
    • Yes, you have to somehow disarm the police officer first, or they will simply shoot you. Liu Bei 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The answer is no in most states in the United States. A citizen may not resist the government even if the agent is performing an illegal action. Pyrogen 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible NPOV question on the "Dangers" section: you ought to make clear that most LEO's and LEA's strongly advise people to call police if they witness a crime, and that the views expressed are those of the LEO's and LEA's, not those of Wikipedia.org. I'm sure we all agree that a law-enforcement agency's advice on such matters deserves the most serious consideration, and that passing along that advice is a valuable public service. But that does not mean that you necessarily agree with that advice, or give the appearance of such agreement. --Temlakos 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Second that comment. I removed part. It should be rephrased before possibly being put back in. --Howdybob 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


On the Dangers sections: It looks like it was lifted from some polic website. It reads like a PSA. Seems like a NPOV issue.--User:Ozoneliar

[edit] Liberal POV

Sean Black removed this "silly warning":

In most cases a general call for help or an emergency call may be more appropriate than an attempt at a citizen's arrest.

I agree that it's silly and that Wikipedia should not endorse it, let alone use it as a warning. However, it should be included in a modified form.

This is a fairly good summary of the Liberal point of view that people should not take matters of law enforcement into their own hands - ever! - but should leave it all to "the authorities". It relates to Gun contral advocacy: private citizens should not use pistols or rifles to discourage robbery or assault (even in self-defense) but should (1) avoid resisting the criminal and (2) try to get away and/or call the police. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, stop having a political name-calling session in the middle of the talk page. The warning doesn't really belong because it's not a fact about citizen's arrests, but an opinion about their safety and suitability. --joeOnSunset 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberal has different meanings in different countries - not useful in this sort of discussion Esthameian 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risky?

In the UK section we have "These powers are rather risky to use, since it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an indictable or either way offence has been committed. If no offence has been committed,... the arrest was unlawful.". Surely this eventuality is covered by the "reasonable grounds for suspecting" clause. --Shantavira 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be my conclusion too, from reading the act. Constables get the additional power to arrest on reasonable suspicion that an offence is going to be committed. Otherwise the wording is exactly the same. Case law may be differ between the two cases of course. User:pharm 17:20, 30 Oct 2006

See this page from www.askthe.police.uk for the current guidance on this issue from the UK police. User:pharm 17:33, 30 Oct 2006

There may be a need to add information about if there is a campiegn or move to make a citizens arrest against the law due to such significant safety issues.

note the emphasis - the reasonable suspicion relates to which person committed the offence - you must be certain that an offence has been committed, which usually means seeing it occur.

[edit] Matthew Cooper

I can't seem to find any reference to the Matthew Cooper case on the Web. Is there any citation available for it? If not it will probably have to be removed. --Ross UK 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doneyeah beotch. --Ross UK 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] any which way you like

What is an "either way offence"? —Tamfang 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow the Wiki link to Hybrid (= either way ) offences.

"Either way" in short means an indictable offence i.e. one which can be tried either in a magistrates, or crown court. Indictable offences are those of a more serious nature e.g. robbery, criminal damage, rape, drugs posession/selling, etc.

[edit] Canada, requirements

In the section on Canada, someone has added a long series of steps that an arresting citizen supposedly must take, but I can't find any reference to some of them in the Criminal Code subsection referenced at the start of that section. As far as I can tell, the arresting citizen does not have to identify himself, tell the arrested citizen why he is under arrest (though it would seem a good idea), or advise the him of any rights such as the right to counsel. If these requirements come from the Code, please reference the appropriate section (and make sure they really apply to the "Arrest without a warrant by any person" section, not just to peace officers). If from case law, provide a link. Otherwise that paragraph should be reduced to just what is covered by the citations available. PeterHansen 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the requirements that have been listed here (identifying self, advising the person of their rights, etc.) are not, strictly speaking, legally required by private citizens. These steps are taken by police officers in order to make sure that the prisoner's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not violated - because, if they are, the court might just throw out evidence against the accused. For example, if a police officer questions a prisoner and he/she makes an incriminating statement (i.e. admits they're guilty) but hasn't been informed of the right to consult a lawyer then there is a good chance that the courts will throw out the statement as inadmissible evidence. I'm not aware whether the courts would throw out an incriminating statement made to a private individual who made a citizen's arrest. My general understanding is that the Charter of Rights only is intended to limit the actions of governments, not private individuals so I don't think you could use it to have the actions of private individals declared illegal but I may be wrong...

04:53, 06 November, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.179.85 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As well, it should be noted that, if you make a citizen's arrest but don't inform the offender that you are, in fact, arresting him then he could use violence against you and claim that he was merely defending himself because he didn't know that you were attempting to arrest him but thought you were merely attacking him. You might even end up being charged with assault yourself on the grounds that, since you made no mention of arrest, you weren't actually making an arrest, simply assaulting the offender. Something to consider.

[edit] this happened to me - please help!

i was recently beat up by a manager at safeway.

after he wrestled me to the ground and hit me in the face three times, and my blood was everywhere, he claimed citizens arrest.

the police came and arrested me for "shop-lifting" - i admit, i was wrong, but it was not shop-lifting - i thought that the stores offered free samples of the specific product, and most of them do. furthermore, the corporate office said that safeway employees are trained to give free samples if a customer asks for them, and although i did not ask, i do not feel that i was shop-lifting, merely that i made a mistake thinking that i could take a sample without asking because at other stores (of the same chain) they have free samples available.

anyways, i was also charged with battery, because, like a little kid who just beat someone up, his excuse whether it was true or not, was that i "swung at him first"

i swear under penalty of pergury that this was not true.

i was taken to jail, charged with felony commercial burglery, misdemeanor batter, and misdemeanor resisting arrest.

the resisting arrest was then dropped, and the felony commercial burglery was dropped to misdemeaner petit larceny. -- BriEnBest (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speak to a solicitor - Wikipedia isn't a free legal advice service. DirectEdge (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
tf? this is a discussion page on citizens' arrests. please help me... BriEnBest (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
this is a place where we discuss the subject of citizens' arrests, including real life examples on them. this can include the technicalities of them, including real life situations, and what people can do after they happen; if they are illegale or not, etc. i don't know why you are so cold... BriEnBest (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned on my talk page, I merely think it would be best for you to seek professional legal advice relevant to your individual circumstances. Sorry if that came across as being cold, but you did say 'please help me' which implies you want advice of some kind. The best advice I can give you, apart from seek legal counsel, is to research the specific legislation in your jurisdiction regarding the any-person or 'citizen's' arrest powers. DirectEdge (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks bro, i will go to the nevada law library on monday, and check out what the specifics are about citizens' arrest.
I need to find out if he is required by law to state that he is making a citizens' arrest before he grabbed me. If he was allowed (in any circumstances) to hit me in the face, and if he was allowed to make a citizens' arrest at all since what he suspected me of committing was a misdemeanor, if that - i guess that's just the state law though... thanks peace, BriEnBest (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

  • Can someone make a "citizen's arrest" (grab someone and restrain them) without stating that they're making a citizen's arrest? Wouldn't this seems to the person that's being grabbed as just an aggressive and/or violent action?
in nevada, yes.
  • In what, if any, cases can the person making the citizen's arrest punch the person they are arresting in the face? If the person that got arrested (by a citizen) is bleeding, when the cops see them, are the police supposed to question and/or arrest the one who made the citizen's arrest for beating them up?
Use of force by private person in carrying out an arrest: amount of force; deadly force. in securing or attempting an arrest persuant to NRS 171.126, a private person may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. the use of deadly force in carrying out such an arrest is unreasonable as a matter of law unless the arrestee poses a threat of serious bodily injure to the private arrestor or others."
Whether force can be used and how much would depend on the law of the specific jurisdiction. In Canada a person who is making a legal arrest can use reasonable force against the person being arrested. How much force is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances. For example, if the offender is attempting to fight with you or is attempting to get away then you would be allowed to use more force than if he or she didn't resist in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.15.153 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someone make a citizen's arrest on someone who is under legal age? (BriEnBest (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC))
I think so, yes. Questions answered by BriEnBest (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USA - support by police? Miranda requirements?

I read some years ago (I realize thats unsourced; can't begin to find it now) that the concept of "citizens arrest" was considered archaic in the USA, and is generally discouraged by police now. (This may have been a trend during the 70s liberalism). That said, can anyone answer a couple of questions:
1) Do actual citizens arrests still take place or is it indeed obsolete, perhaps due to lack of support by police and the judiciary?
2) Or is CA really just detainment until the police respond?
3) How does CA square with the Miranda requirement (reading of rights)?
Thanks to anybody knowledgeable enough to respond to these specifically. Engr105th (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] USA - Washington State description misleading

I removed the following: The state of Washington does not have a specific statute granting citizen's arrest powers. However there have been several state court decisions rendered that affirm and uphold common law citizen's arrest power for (a) felonies committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or (b) misdemeanors committed in the presence of the person making the arrest provided the misdemeanor also constituted a breach of the peace.

This is misleading. RCW 9A.160.020 Paragraph (2) (3) (4) provide for the use of force for citizens arrest or detention depending on the circumstances:

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

The statement I removed indicated (erroneously) that: A) There are no statutes for citizens arrest, B) A felony must be committed in the presence of the arrestor and C) Arrest can be made for misdemeanors in certain circumstances.

I think that a special caveat re: Washington State is not necessary and confuses the issue. If a caveat is to be made, it should be made to accurately reflect the facts, which are virtually identical to most states.

M.O. 207.171.180.101 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)