Laws of Arrest - too much for some people to understand ?

[LPCap]

My company does not always press charges on the arrested person. Based on being a first time, price of the stolen item, and other circumstances, we don't press charges on all theft.

If nobody presses charges because the person has never been charged before, the person will never get charged.

Some shoplifters NEED to be charged and with others, it is a waste of time.

[bigdog]

Even in Canada, as in the U.S., a retailer has the right to stop and detain a "shoplifting suspect' to ask questions to acertain if they did steal. This is not an arrest. They may even be taken to an office or private space to determine this. If it is determined that they did not shoplift, they are immediately released. The arrest comes when they are told so by an agent of the retailer or police.

In the state of Florida if a retailer detains a shoplifter they have to call a law enforcement immediately its part of the statute.

[bigdog]

I've always been told that in Canada if you feel that you are not free to leave, you have in fact been arrested.

Heres in Florida and most other states there are four criteria the situation has to meet for it to be considered an arrest.

(1) intent to make an arrest "under real or pretended authority;" (2) "an actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested;" (3) communication of the intent to arrest; (4) understanding by the suspect that the officer intends to arrest and detain him or her

[NRM_Oz]

There is a huge legal point to argue here - by using the term ARREST, DETAIN or placing my hand on their shoulder (long arm of the law) they are assumed to be under arrest. I was always trained to use the word please often enough as it shows you are being `nice` so there are no arguments there. In Australia we cannot detain anyone under the guise of suspicion unless you are a sworn officer of the law. Too many LP idiots have 75% of the criteria for an arrest and forget the important stuff.

[Nauticus]

Very interesting.

In Canada, stopping someone from "going about their regular duties" is considered arrest (so if they are leaving and you stop them, this is arrest). Peace officers can detain, then release, because they are allowed to investigate and charge people later, so they are allowed to detain someone "on basis of a pending investigation". A private citizen does not have these investigation rights, as they cannot arrest for something they did not witness being committed.

I haven't given thought to how I can, legally, just let people know. But I definitely want to pursue this with my employer.

[N. A. Corbier]

Wisconsin Statute also requires a shopkeeper to immediately summon a public law enforcement officer to the scene of any detention. Basically, if you say "no" to "Am I free to go," then you need to call a police officer.

[Lynch Mob]

Then how would you explain the ability of the police to stop and question someone? The person is not under arrest. Believe me that is a big misconception on both sides of the border.

Are you saying that if you caught a shoplifter, held them in the office for 4 hours, handcuffed to a chair, and them let them go without calling the police this person was never under arrest?

That would mean you could not be sued for false arrest then too, right?

[HotelSecurity]

Are you saying that if you caught a shoplifter, held them in the office for 4 hours, handcuffed to a chair, and them let them go without calling the police this person was never under arrest?

That would mean you could not be sued for false arrest then too, right?

And possibly kidnapping!

[NRM_Oz]

Wrongful Imprisonment ............ and deprivation of watching LOST and PRISON BREAK.

[Nauticus]

If nobody presses charges because the person has never been charged before, the person will never get charged.

Some shoplifters NEED to be charged and with others, it is a waste of time.

Oh, we're aware of that. That is why that it's simply one criteria we go over prior to deciding whether or not to charge someone.

[souperdave]

IMHO, discretionary prosecution is almost always a slippery slope.

[Curtis Baillie]

Are you saying that if you caught a shoplifter, held them in the office for 4 hours, handcuffed to a chair, and them let them go without calling the police this person was never under arrest?

That would mean you could not be sued for false arrest then too, right?

Of course not - and you know better. Nowhere did you get that from my post.

[Lynch Mob]

Of course not - and you know better. Nowhere did you get that from my post.

Yes, I do know better. At what point does a detention become an arrest? You had said it becomes an arrest at the point the person is advised they are under arrest. That is not completely accurate. In the example I cited, the person was never advised they were under arrest, but they clearly were placed under arrest.

So, at what point does a detention become an arrest?

[Curtis Baillie]

Yes, I do know better. At what point does a detention become an arrest? You had said it becomes an arrest at the point the person is advised they are under arrest. That is not completely accurate. In the example I cited, the person was never advised they were under arrest, but they clearly were placed under arrest.

So, at what point does a detention become an arrest?

Here's my post - Originally Posted by Curtis Baillie

Then how would you explain the ability of the police to stop and question someone? The person is not under arrest. Believe me that is a big misconception on both sides of the border.

How did you get an example of illegal shoplifter detention out of that? Once again you can be trusted to twist and turn the facts.

[Lynch Mob]

Here's my post - Originally Posted by Curtis Baillie

Then how would you explain the ability of the police to stop and question someone? The person is not under arrest. Believe me that is a big misconception on both sides of the border.

How did you get an example of illegal shoplifter detention out of that? Once again you can be trusted to twist and turn the facts.

And then you followed up with this:

"Even in Canada, as in the U.S., a retailer has the right to stop and detain a "shoplifting suspect' to ask questions to acertain if they did steal. This is not an arrest. They may even be taken to an office or private space to determine this. If it is determined that they did not shoplift, they are immediately released. The arrest comes when they are told so by an agent of the retailer or police."

Your words were that "the arrest comes when they are told so by an agent of the retailer or police."

I did not twist anything. You made, what I believe to be, an erroneous statement. I provided an example that demostrated the error in the statement. I just asked for clarification from you, giving you a chance to correct your statement. Instead, you choose to fight and insult me.

I will give you another opportunity to correct your statement. At what point does a detention become an arrest?