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

[Lynch Mob]

Look Lynch Mob, for whatever reason we appear to be going round and round with this and getting no where. I understand what I need to know about arrest and can always consult with an attorney if I have further questions.

By the time you need to consult with an attorney it may be too late.

To be honest, I am not sure what we are disagreeing on, but you seem dead set in saying I am wrong and that an arrest is viewed different in criminal and civil court. I have tried to be clear, but perhaps I am not being clear. I agree that when you are charged with false arrest the burden of proof is different in civil and criminal court. I am just saying that how that arrest is perceived and analyzed is exactly the same. I have said over and over the definition is the same. The standards of what constitutes an arrest are the same.

Perhaps this is more clear. If you did not actually enact an arrest on a person, you will never lose a case of false arrest. The defense is that you never placed the person under arrest. The court will be able to define whether they individual was actually placed under arrest. The issue in a false arrest case (either criminally or civilly) is generally not whether an arrest was made. For that case to proceed forward, there must be agreement that an arrest was made. The issue becomes whether the arrest was legal or not (thus a false arrest or not).

So, the arrest is viewed the same. The criteria for it being legal or not is the same. The burden of proof is different.

Does that make sense?

[N. A. Corbier]

You guy's probably already know how Florida works. As a Security Officer the only F.S.S. that allows one to detain a person is Retail Theft/Shoplifting under F.S.S. 812.015. Everything else is an interview and that person is free to go at anytime. If I was to tell someone they could not leave, I could be charged criminally and most likely civilly. The tricky one is if you were to use cuffs as a level of force, I have now become responsible for that persons well being, so if he goes running, you better hope he is not fast, and I cannot detain him to boot! Basically as a Security Officer in Florida you need to assure the person they are doing the right thing by waiting for a LEO to arrive. Now some government SO's have been deputize or commissioned to use the power of arrest.
Also there is no such thing as citizens arrest in the state of Florida.
I'm sure you guy's were already familiar with Florida laws I just thought I would add it to this thread.
Eric B.

Actually, you're wrong. Florida uses Common Law. There is a common law authority for citizens to make arrests (not detentions) for a felony in all fifty states. Florida further has a common law authority for any person to quell a breach of the peace by arrest.

The problem, here, is that police officers are only taught that they can make "arrests out of jurisdiction." Ask any cop about a DUI arrest out of their jurisdiction, and they'll say that they can make it. (If they've been keeping up with their training.)

Now, ask them how they can make such an arrest for DUI out of their jurisdiction since they lose their state powers of arrest once they leave their jurisdiction. They basically become a private citizen with a Class G license, since a law enforcement officer may carry anywhere in the state (Much like a Class G licensee can.)

This is how most law enforcement officers are taught powers of citizen's arrest: As something only a law enforcement officer can do. This is, of course, completely incorrect.

I would refer you to Chapter 493.6118, though, for statutory prohibitions on using force for all licensees of Chapter 493. Basically, FSS 493.6118(j) makes it an offense to use force except in protection of person. So... If you use force (touch someone, remember the elements of battery) to escort someone from the property, you are committing a crime.

[ericb]

You guy's probably already know how Florida works. As a Security Officer the only F.S.S. that allows one to detain a person is Retail Theft/Shoplifting under F.S.S. 812.015. Everything else is an interview and that person is free to go at anytime. If I was to tell someone they could not leave, I could be charged criminally and most likely civilly. The tricky one is if you were to use cuffs as a level of force, I have now become responsible for that persons well being, so if he goes running, you better hope he is not fast, and I cannot detain him to boot! Basically as a Security Officer in Florida you need to assure the person they are doing the right thing by waiting for a LEO to arrive. Now some government SO's have been deputize or commissioned to use the power of arrest.
Also there is no such thing as citizens arrest in the state of Florida.
I'm sure you guy's were already familiar with Florida laws I just thought I would add it to this thread.
Eric B.

[NRM_Oz]

FYI - new security licence categories in NSW (Australia) for Loss Prevention. Basically is says an LPO cannot conduct their duties with the use of handcuffs, batons or OC spray under this licencing system.

So I guess that ensures we will never go back to the olden days of cuffs in the early 90's.

[Mr. Security]

When did I say that? Or anything remotely close to that?

I think you need to go back and read what I said again. In this case, you could potentially be held criminally liable to a false arrest just as you could be held civilly liable. The arrest is the same. The burden of proof to prove criminal intent is heavier than to prove civil liability, but the standards of what constitutes an arrest are the same.

Example:
I leave a store without ever stealing anything. You stop me, handcuff me, and take me back into the store. You call the police. They find I have not stolen anything and they pull you aside and say, "you just made a false arrest". I now decide that I want to make a citizen's arrest on you for false arrest and false imprisonment. I tell the cop I want to make the arrest. The cop could turn you around, put you in handcuffs, and take you down to the police station to charge you with false arrest and false imprisonment. I could also file a civil suit for the same actions.

The standards of what constitutes an arrest are the same.

Look Lynch Mob, for whatever reason we appear to be going round and round with this and getting no where. I understand what I need to know about arrest and can always consult with an attorney if I have further questions.

[Lynch Mob]

So, if I tell you as a citizen that you are under arrest and I detain you, call the police, the police arrive and say “That’s an unlawful arrest," that you can't sue me in civil court for unlawful arrest? Of course you can because my arrest, although not legally a criminal one was a civil one as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

When did I say that? Or anything remotely close to that?

I think you need to go back and read what I said again. In this case, you could potentially be held criminally liable to a false arrest just as you could be held civilly liable. The arrest is the same. The burden of proof to prove criminal intent is heavier than to prove civil liability, but the standards of what constitutes an arrest are the same.

Example:
I leave a store without ever stealing anything. You stop me, handcuff me, and take me back into the store. You call the police. They find I have not stolen anything and they pull you aside and say, "you just made a false arrest". I now decide that I want to make a citizen's arrest on you for false arrest and false imprisonment. I tell the cop I want to make the arrest. The cop could turn you around, put you in handcuffs, and take you down to the police station to charge you with false arrest and false imprisonment. I could also file a civil suit for the same actions.

The standards of what constitutes an arrest are the same.

[NRM_Oz]

........ regardless of the country you make a false arrest, detain, handcuff or imprison someone for a length of time deemed unsuitable ............. you can then be charged by the police. I know the USA has the shop keepers laws about detaining and requesting police attendance up to 4 hours, but I do know of a case in the 1980's where someone was detained in a toilet (yes the cubicle itself) by a McDonalds (could have been Burger King) manager after stealing a customers handbag. The manager was charged with false imprisonment (no sure of the US jargon) but had the charges dropped.

[Mr. Security]

The Supreme Court.

You will not find a case anywhere where there is a different standard for the definition of an arrest between civil and criminal courts.

As a reference:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1687/Police-Private-Police-Industrial-Security-Legal-authority.html

A quote from this site:

"Under common law every citizen, like the law enforcement officer, has a right to make an arrest. A private citizen can make an arrest for a criminal offense without a warrant if the arrested person has committed a felony in his/her presence or if the arrested person has committed a felony offense outside the presence of the citizen but the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed. The scope of a citizen's arrest power is similar to that of a law enforcement officer. However, a citizen's arrest is always made at the arrestor's own risk. That is, if the arrest proves to be unlawful, the arrestor is exposed to the risk of criminal or civil liability. A private police officer is subject to these limitations and must balance the need to protect the interests of his employer with the need to avoid making false arrests."


You are mistaking the burden of proof for conviction or judgement compared to the legality of a police action and definition of that action. These are different matters. Just as a burglary is the same in criminal or civil court, theft is the same in civil or criminal court, an arrest is the same in civil or criminal court.

Whether one can be found guilty of false arrest is different. You are right that the burden of proof in criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt and in civil court it is a prepoderance of the evidence. But, in both cases, making the determination as to whether an actual arrest was even made would be the same.

So, if I tell you as a citizen that you are under arrest and I detain you, call the police, the police arrive and say “That’s an unlawful arrest," that you can't sue me in civil court for unlawful arrest? Of course you can because my arrest, although not legally a criminal one was a civil one as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

[Lynch Mob]

Is it? What source are you referring to?

The Supreme Court.

You will not find a case anywhere where there is a different standard for the definition of an arrest between civil and criminal courts.

As a reference:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1687/Police-Private-Police-Industrial-Security-Legal-authority.html

A quote from this site:

"Under common law every citizen, like the law enforcement officer, has a right to make an arrest. A private citizen can make an arrest for a criminal offense without a warrant if the arrested person has committed a felony in his/her presence or if the arrested person has committed a felony offense outside the presence of the citizen but the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed. The scope of a citizen's arrest power is similar to that of a law enforcement officer. However, a citizen's arrest is always made at the arrestor's own risk. That is, if the arrest proves to be unlawful, the arrestor is exposed to the risk of criminal or civil liability. A private police officer is subject to these limitations and must balance the need to protect the interests of his employer with the need to avoid making false arrests."


You are mistaking the burden of proof for conviction or judgement compared to the legality of a police action and definition of that action. These are different matters. Just as a burglary is the same in criminal or civil court, theft is the same in civil or criminal court, an arrest is the same in civil or criminal court.

Whether one can be found guilty of false arrest is different. You are right that the burden of proof in criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt and in civil court it is a prepoderance of the evidence. But, in both cases, making the determination as to whether an actual arrest was even made would be the same.

[Mr. Security]

I understand the difference in levels of proof when convicting of a crime or when filing a lawsuit. However, that is not what we were talking about. We were talking about the legal definition of an arrest. That definition is the same in criminal and civil courts. There is no difference at those two levels....

Is it? What source are you referring to?

[HotelSecurity]

But look up false stop/arrest and you'll find that it's a crime to stop someone who hasn't committed an offense.

"on reasonable grounds, he believes" What article do you want me to look at?

[Nauticus]

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person
Here's the law. Look at 494 (b)(i)(ii)

But look up false stop/arrest and you'll find that it's a crime to stop someone who hasn't committed an offense.

[NRM_Oz]

Yep the bloke is right 101% ................. because we are 1 state apart and this would cause uproar like a beer strike at Xmas time. The book says it so I guess it has to be the law - cannot recall Sec. 462 when I was previously licenced in this state about 10 years back.

[Maelstrom]

Maelstrom - I mean no offence just curious as to where I should look to read more about your arrest conditions.

No offence taken

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 462

Definition of finds committing

462. Definition of finds committing



"In this Act the expression finds committing and any derivative thereof extends
to the case of a person found doing any act or so behaving or conducting
himself or in such circumstances that the person finding him believes on
reasonable grounds that the person so found is guilty of an offence."





But due to the term "reasonable grounds" ever becoming a intensely slippery slope, this definition of "finds committing" isn't recommended to be acted upon

Additional reference @ Victorian Dept. Of Justice & HERE

Further sections of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 worth noting...

Section 458 - Powers of arrest
Section 462A - Use of force
Section 463A - Arrest of offenders on board aircraft
Section 463B - Use of force to prevent commission of suicide

[HotelSecurity]

We can assist in an arrest where someone is being chased by a peace officer, but we do not arrest under these circumstances. If someone is chasing someone else, yelling "he just attacked me", you have no reasonable cause to make any arrest. Again, in Canada, you can't lawfully arrest somebody unless you witness the offense, or you're a peace officer.

This is how I learnt it in all of my programs, and this is what all the companies I've ever worked for see it, so this is the way I tend to believe it's true.

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person
Here's the law. Look at 494 (b)(i)(ii)