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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Mr. Security]

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?

I agree w/ the burden part.

Here is the situation where I think you might have a problem. Subject A calls the police and complains that you falsely arrested him/her. The police arrive and tell subject A that no, he/she is mistaken, you did not make a false arrest, in fact legally you didn’t make an arrest at all. Subject A, not happy with the police decision, sues you in a civil court for false arrest, even w/o foundation. You have to pay out of your pocket (as with most security companies) for your defense. Maybe the jury sympathizes with subject A and finds in his/her favor, even if they do not apply the law correctly, i.e. jury nullification. You lose.

Even if they find in your favor, you still lose because you paid for the defense. That's why you have to be very careful w/ citizen's arrest.

[Lynch Mob]

I agree w/ the burden part.

Here is the situation where I think you might have a problem. Subject A calls the police and complains that you falsely arrested him/her. The police arrive and tell subject A that no, he/she is mistaken, you did not make a false arrest, in fact legally you didn’t make an arrest at all. Subject A, not happy with the police decision, sues you in a civil court for false arrest, even w/o foundation. You have to pay out of your pocket (as with most security companies) for your defense. Maybe the jury sympathizes with subject A and finds in his/her favor, even if they do not apply the law correctly, i.e. jury nullification. You lose.

Even if they find in your favor, you still lose because you paid for the defense. That's why you have to be very careful w/ citizen's arrest.

I agree with you 100%. This is why I have been talking about this. Some on here gave improper advice that some situations may not constitute an arrest, when in fact, they do. I am telling people to be aware of the laws so they are aware of how their actions can be viewed.

If you do not understand the laws of arrest and you follow advice on an internet message board, you could wind up in deep trouble. For example, if you think you can handcuff someone, take them in the office and be protected because you never told the person they were under arrest, you would be seriously mistaken and it could cost you dearly. Bad advice needs to be corrected, at least so people know they need to do some more research of the subject.

I definitely support the idea of being careful in making arrests.

[ericb]

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.

Sorry if I posted misinformation, I was taught this by my class instructor. After reading more about the citizens arrest laws in Florida I still would not attempt one. If I was witnessing a felony act to a person I would most likely exercise my rights to use necessary force to stop the crime. Instead of using the citizens arrest law, do you think it would be better to use OC (as long as the resistance level were to that point, of course being certified) and then care for them while LEO's arrive? Just seems like less chances for me to do something that infringes on the rights of others. I also read somewhere that only 49 states permit citizens arrest, that N Carolina does not.

Eric B.

Here is one thing I found that worries me about citizens arrest. Mind you this is an off duty FHP, so I'm sure his experience with arresting a person came into play.

There are several formal cites the State of Florida uses when discussing "citizens arrest."

One case involves an off-duty FHP officer outside of his official patrol jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the off-duty trooper stating that his powers of arrest were no different than that of a citizen. (See Phoneix v. State)

We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." (See Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Ordinarily, private citizens in Florida do not have the "powers of arrest," however, under limited circumstances a private party may make an arrest where an actual commission of a FELONY offense has been commited in their presence.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others.

Because of the legalities and liabilities involved you should exercise EXTREME caution prior to making a citizens arrest