Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • LPAjh9558
    replied
    Originally posted by NRM_Oz View Post
    I now have to ask someone who is unconcious if I may render 1st aid to them (true just in case they wake up and say NO) and we are trained to now Identify ourselves as first aiders and to ask permission to render first aid to any friends or relatives around the victim. Same thing but without the legal acts ....... yet.
    Same thing with us. We were told to identify ourselves as Loss Prevention and ask if they needed any first aid? On top of that, we'd carry some paper (to get info on) and a huge first aid bag To this day I thnk we had to identify ourselves just incase the accident victim woke up and thought we were gonna attack him with the bad

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by R.boyle2003 View Post
    I am only on page 6 of this thread but I wanted to let you guys know that this is a very informative thread and I am enjoying the read and learning alot from it. I know that this is not regarding the topic I just wanted to chime in.
    Mr. Boyle that is what this forum is all about, the sharing of information and ideas. Folks in this forum have years of experience and it shows. I have 50+ years in this business and astounded by what I've learned from some incredible people. The day you think you know it all is the day you should have completed your last will and testament because that is the day your going to get yourself seriously hurt or killed. Worse than that you might take innocents with you.
    Read the threads and join in because we all want to learn.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • R.boyle2003
    replied
    Incredibly Informative

    I am only on page 6 of this thread but I wanted to let you guys know that this is a very informative thread and I am enjoying the read and learning alot from it. I know that this is not regarding the topic I just wanted to chime in.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    You are dying - can I give you 1st Aid ?

    I now have to ask someone who is unconcious if I may render 1st aid to them (true just in case they wake up and say NO) and we are trained to now Identify ourselves as first aiders and to ask permission to render first aid to any friends or relatives around the victim. Same thing but without the legal acts ....... yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by ericb View Post
    Funny thing about laws they always keep me guessing. Under The Good Samaritan act I find this.
    Implied consent
    Consent may be implied if the patient is unconscious, delusional, intoxicated, deemed mentally unfit to make decisions regarding their safety, or if the responder had a reasonable belief that this was as such; courts tend to be very forgiving in adjudicating this, under the legal fiction that "peril invites rescue."

    To some people a intoxicated person may appear ill and if they are big enough to feel safe helping a intoxicated person, then how would that fall out of The Good Samaritan Act?

    Eric B.
    The good Samaritan act is for people providing CPR and First aid type stuff not citizens arrest.

    florida's good samaritain act

    768.13 Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.--
    (1) This act shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Act."

    (2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

    (b)1. Any health care provider, including a hospital licensed under chapter 395, providing emergency services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd, s. 395.1041, s. 395.401, or s. 401.45 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.

    2. The immunity provided by this paragraph applies to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment, including diagnosis:

    a. Which occurs prior to the time the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery.

    b. Which is related to the original medical emergency.

    3. For purposes of this paragraph, "reckless disregard" as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct that a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, created an unreasonable risk of injury so as to affect the life or health of another, and such risk was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent.

    4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395.

    (c)1. Any health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001(4) who is in a hospital attending to a patient of his or her practice or for business or personal reasons unrelated to direct patient care, and who voluntarily responds to provide care or treatment to a patient with whom at that time the practitioner does not have a then-existing health care patient-practitioner relationship, and when such care or treatment is necessitated by a sudden or unexpected situation or by an occurrence that demands immediate medical attention, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission relative to that care or treatment, unless that care or treatment is proven to amount to conduct that is willful and wanton and would likely result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another.

    2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment unrelated to the original situation that demanded immediate medical attention.

    3. For purposes of this paragraph, the Legislature's intent is to encourage health care practitioners to provide necessary emergency care to all persons without fear of litigation as described in this paragraph.

    (d) Any person whose acts or omissions are not otherwise covered by this section and who participates in emergency response activities under the direction of or in connection with a community emergency response team, local emergency management agencies, the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Community Affairs, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency is not liable for any civil damages as a result of care, treatment, or services provided gratuitously in such capacity and resulting from any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further care, treatment, or services, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

    (3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    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.
    Exactly right.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericb
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    DUI is a breach of the peace offense, in which any citizen may make a private arrest under common law. It does not matter if it was a felony, and you do not have probable cause at the time to determine in good faith that it was a felony. Seeing someone who was DUI and making a good faith arrest on suspicious of DUI is all that is needed for the (misdemeanor) BOP arrest.

    As far as the Good Samaritan Act, it has never and will never cover the use of offense force against someone to deprive them of their freedom.
    Funny thing about laws they always keep me guessing. Under The Good Samaritan act I find this.
    Implied consent
    Consent may be implied if the patient is unconscious, delusional, intoxicated, deemed mentally unfit to make decisions regarding their safety, or if the responder had a reasonable belief that this was as such; courts tend to be very forgiving in adjudicating this, under the legal fiction that "peril invites rescue."

    To some people a intoxicated person may appear ill and if they are big enough to feel safe helping a intoxicated person, then how would that fall out of The Good Samaritan Act?

    Eric B.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by ericb View Post
    So is a citizens arrest more like a law base on the Judge's discretion? This one you have quoted is a misdemeanor, unless it was this persons third, correct. This is off the Florida DMV
    DUI Felony Conviction: (Repeat Offenders or Accidents Involving Serious Bodily Injury)-s. 316.193 (2),(3) F.S.
    Any person convicted of a third DUI within 10 years or a fourth or subsequent DUI commits a Third Degree Felony (not more than $5,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment).
    Any person who causes serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is guilty of a Third Degree Felony (not more than $5,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment) or if habitual/violent felony offender as provided in s. 775.084, F.S.

    How was that person to know how many DUI's this person had, or if he injured someone. So in this case it would seem the drunk would have a solid case on this person that held him there(maybe they were pals of some sort, not alot of roads in the Key's haha.). But I would hope everyone would do this if they saw a DUI happening. Am I wrong? Maybe this would follow along a Good Samaritan act more than a citizens arrest?

    Eric B.
    DUI is a breach of the peace offense, in which any citizen may make a private arrest under common law. It does not matter if it was a felony, and you do not have probable cause at the time to determine in good faith that it was a felony. Seeing someone who was DUI and making a good faith arrest on suspicious of DUI is all that is needed for the (misdemeanor) BOP arrest.

    As far as the Good Samaritan Act, it has never and will never cover the use of offense force against someone to deprive them of their freedom.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericb
    replied
    Originally posted by bigdog View Post
    The funny thing about that paragraph is you see it on every lawyers website. While a felony is one instance in which a citizen can arrest. Ive made breach of peace citizens arrest in the past for everything from a battery to domestic battery. (notice the crimes involve violence that one element needed for a breach of peace citizens arrest ) Every citizens arrest ive made has been accepted by the State attorney.

    Heres an article about a citizen making a DUI citizens arrest this year in Key west.
    August 14, 2007

    A DUI citizen's arrest in Key West

    A man was seen driving erratically from Ramrod Key to Key West. Police were called and when they arrived they found a concerned citizen holding the driver down on the pavement. He told police he pulled the erratic driver from his car at a stop sign because of his concern for the safety of others. When police asked the DUI suspect if he understood his Miranda rights he told them the only health problem he had was bunions on his feet, the Key West Citizen reports.
    So is a citizens arrest more like a law base on the Judge's discretion? This one you have quoted is a misdemeanor, unless it was this persons third, correct. This is off the Florida DMV
    DUI Felony Conviction: (Repeat Offenders or Accidents Involving Serious Bodily Injury)-s. 316.193 (2),(3) F.S.
    Any person convicted of a third DUI within 10 years or a fourth or subsequent DUI commits a Third Degree Felony (not more than $5,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment).
    Any person who causes serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is guilty of a Third Degree Felony (not more than $5,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment) or if habitual/violent felony offender as provided in s. 775.084, F.S.

    How was that person to know how many DUI's this person had, or if he injured someone. So in this case it would seem the drunk would have a solid case on this person that held him there(maybe they were pals of some sort, not alot of roads in the Key's haha.). But I would hope everyone would do this if they saw a DUI happening. Am I wrong? Maybe this would follow along a Good Samaritan act more than a citizens arrest?

    Eric B.
    Last edited by ericb; 12-06-2007, 10:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    In Canada most people do not realize that Security Officers as agents of the owner, have more power of arrest than a regular citizen as long as he witness the event & it occurs on or in relation to the property his is being paid to protect. I have been told that this applies as far as to allow a Security person working for a bank to make an arrest anywhere someone is using a credit card to commit a crime since it is clear on the back of the card that "it is the property of abc Bank".

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by ericb View Post
    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
    The funny thing about that paragraph is you see it on every lawyers website. While a felony is one instance in which a citizen can arrest. Ive made breach of peace citizens arrest in the past for everything from a battery to domestic battery. (notice the crimes involve violence that one element needed for a breach of peace citizens arrest ) Every citizens arrest ive made has been accepted by the State attorney.

    Heres an article about a citizen making a DUI citizens arrest this year in Key west.
    August 14, 2007

    A DUI citizen's arrest in Key West

    A man was seen driving erratically from Ramrod Key to Key West. Police were called and when they arrived they found a concerned citizen holding the driver down on the pavement. He told police he pulled the erratic driver from his car at a stop sign because of his concern for the safety of others. When police asked the DUI suspect if he understood his Miranda rights he told them the only health problem he had was bunions on his feet, the Key West Citizen reports.
    Last edited by bigdog; 12-05-2007, 04:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    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.
    But since the only time a security officer would arrest for a breach of peace would be if it involved violence, it wouldn't be a violation of chapter 493. Also if the person you are removing from you property is trying to start fights with people or other acts which endanger the safety of the people on the property or themselves you also wouldn't be in violation of 493 because your protecting them from physical harm. We can't make such broad statements like if you touch someone to escort them off your property its a violation of 493, it depends on the circumstances of the situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericb
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    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
    Last edited by ericb; 12-05-2007, 03:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynch Mob
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X