Citizen's arrest? Good idea?

No Bart, I wouldn't. If you have guys that are cranking the discovery for the sake of cranking out the discovery, then that happens. You hired "litigators". If they can't show me recent trial success or successful summary judgment, I don't hire them. And if you have a civil defense attorney that takes 5 figures to defeat a pro se jailhouse defendant, your insurance company has an idiot for an adjuster.

I'd prolly represent myself against a pro se jailbird. You likely shouldn't (and I shouldn't either).

Stories like this give me a better road map of how to handle a home invasion. A "citizen's arrest" ain't on that map. I'm not a cop, not about to play cop, and not about to be cross-examined in a civil court for playing cop.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you can use only a minimal restraint or the threat of a gun.
Click to expand...
Well, if you point a gun at a guy, you're arresting him, legally speaking. He isn't free to leave, at least if a REASONABLE person in his position would think he wasn't free to leave.

You don't have to utter the magic words "I'm putting you under citizen's arrest" or handcuffs to arrest someone. It's still can be argued to be a "seizure" of that person and iis (arguably) an arrest.

The badguy can still sue you and claim you have unlawfully arrested him. If you point a gun at him then tell him to move to the corner and spread-eagle, he can claim you arrested and kidnapped him unlawfully. He can claim ANYTHING he wants and can drag you into court for the cost of a few sheets of paper.

The cabdriver can sue you. Your guy in the car next to you in the morning rush hour can sue you. Your old girlfriend can sue you. Your ex-spouses new lover can sue you (breach of implied warranty of fitness :)

All for the cost of a few sheets of paper.

Cower in fear if you wish. Sell your guns and move to some socialist paradise. See if that helps.

As someone else said, Miranda applies only to gubment (or agents of the gubment) and you prolly ain't one or you wouldn't be asking some of these questions.
 
Last edited:
nate45 said:
In my opinion it is a bad idea. I can see ordering someone(who has tried to rob, or assault me) to lie on the ground while I call the police. However, if they choose to flee, I would let them go.
Click to expand...

Good post nate. I'd like to second the quote and add in a little bit. One of the videos I watched during my CCW class showed a type of citizen's arrest (scenario is a person walks in in a burglar and does the following): Order the criminal to drop anything in their hands, get on the floor, feet towards you, legs crossed arms spread eagle, palms up, head turned away from you. Then the key: do not position yourself between the criminal and the nearest exist, move if you have to. You then call the police etc etc.

If I had to make a citizen's arrest (I hope I don't, don't want to imagine the type of situation that would call for it), that is how I would go about it. I think it would be prudent to also inform the criminal, while on the phone with 991, that any movement away from the position (ie: turning palms over, uncrossing legs, etc) would be considered an attempt at my life. Note that it's not "I will shoot", just that it would be considered a threat. The dispatcher would hear this, it would be recorded, so that if something did happen, I have that recording to use as evidence. Now if the guy actually uncrossed his legs I wouldn't shoot him, I'd wait until it was more evident that he intended to harm me, which I would hope would seem like I'm giving him more of the benefit of the doubt. And remember, not between the door and the criminal, if he got up and moved towards the door, I'd let him go, not worth it.
 
We've had lots of debate about what to do with the guy who you catch stealing something.

We've seen folks imply that he's a dead man.
Tell him to stay put and cuff him, Dano!

Let him flee into the miasma.

So here's a short story: http://www.policeone.com/bizarre/art...-arrested-him/

The guy is suing for stress and injuries - $500K. How much will the defense cost? Could the good guy recover court costs in the BG loses?
Click to expand...

Stopping someone who you know has your [now stolen] property is legal. In this case, McKoy had every reason to believe Dupree commited a felony to obtain the bike (i.e. burglary of the van) and did have a right to arrest him. If nothing else, he has a right to seize his own property back.

This is one of those reasons an alternative weapon like pepper spray or stun gun should be carried. An Oleoresin Capsicum Baptism is better than shooting him. Applying the stun gun to the handlebars or his back would be better than shooting him. Whilst he's otherwise distracted, you can reclaim your property.

If you get your property back you can let him go. Or someone can get his ID, write the number and last name down and give it back before letting him go. The file a complaint with the PD if desired.

Someone caught on your property stealing? If you can get them to drop the goods, then let them go with a warning that next time he gets a trip to jail. If he's compliant, obeys your instructions and you think you can wait for the PD to show up, then keep him at gunpoint until they do.


Jim Keenan said:
The hard reality is that a citizens arrest is usually a mistake. Do YOU know the correct wording of the Miranda warning? If you make a citizens arrest, you need to recite it or the arrest is illegal and the subject can walk free.

The best thing to do is to hold the subject for police, which you can do. The problem is that you can use only a minimal restraint or the threat of a gun. You can't use the gun, and if the subject gives you the middle finger salute and walks away, there is nothing you can do. (In some states, if the crime was a felony, you can shoot to stop the felon, but check your local laws.)
Click to expand...
The force allowed depends on the state. California has no specific statute for citizen's arrest but generally holds that only reasonable force is ever justified.

Now, there is no requirement for a citizen to issue a Miranda warning. Nor is there a limitation on citizens while protecting their property, from searching a person or his vehicle on the property. Let's suppose I find your truck backed up to my garage while you're loading my belongings into it and I perform a citizen's arrest with the aid of my 12-bore. Once I secure you - handcuffs, rope, duct-tape, etc. - I can legally look inside your truck for my belongings, especially whilst taking your keys. If I see that key-ring has a key for your in-bed storage box and open it to discover a sawed-off shotgun, it is likely going to be admissible in court.

You can attempt to sue me for "invasion of privacy" or something like that. But after catching a thief in the act, a citizen searching for his property opening a locked container is likely "a reasonable action". In California, I may search the arrestee and take from him any weapons. I would extend that to his vehicle too as a "reasonable precaution".

Additionally, even under citizen's arrest, if I ask you questions like "How long did you case my house?" or "Did you come here just to grab this cheap junk?", that may seem like an inadmissable interrogation without a Miranda warning, but it is not. I am a citizen, not a government agent. Yes, I can repeat your answers and that can be included in the police report and trial (undoubtedly over objections).

In general, I don't like the idea of "citizen's arrest" in these circumstances, but it is legal. You can let the perp go, but deny him access to his vehicle until the PD removes it from your property (bad car, it trespassed, it has to go to car-jail!). Powers of citizen's arrest vary from state to state and it's best to know the laws in your own state.

Addendum:
Check the laws in your state about threats. Never tell a perp that you let go that next time you'll maim, kill or shoot him. Don't even allude to putting him in the hospital or morgue. In John Wayne's "Big Jake" there's a memorable scene where he rescues a sheep farmer and tells the cowboys who were going to hang him, If you follow him, I'll hunt ya down and kill ya. Every mother's son of ya! Today, in California, that would be deemed a "terroristic threat" which is an arrestable offense.
 
Dumb mistake.

A CCW doesn't make one a "junior sheriff/lone ranger", people need to learn this.

Threating someone with deadly force that stole a bicycle? Really...? Are you really going to shoot someone over a bicycle? Think about that for a few minutes...

Carrying handcuffs? Again, really? What sort of mall ninja are you...?

These stories of idiots who think that a CCW license makes them into some some sort of "junior FBI" aggravate and disturb me...
 
A citizens arrest puts you on very thin ice legally. What are you going to do if he turns and walks away ? If there's no immediate serious threat to you , you have no right to shoot .
 
Three guys saw someone with a bicycle that had been stolen some time before, pointed a gun at the person when they were not immediately threatened, put cuffs on him, and roughed him up
Click to expand...

If I read the article correctly, these are the allegations of the plaintiff. I have seen a longer version of this (can't find it at the moment) that said that police reports had a rather different version, which did not include handcuffs or a physical assault, but did include a naked man trying to hide a bicycle.

The part that is troublesome (and consistent in the different versions of the story that I have seen) is that the private citizens actually did engage in a pursuit of the BG. I personally wouldn't do so, not knowing if the person was armed (although at the end of the chase he seemed to lack cover garments) or had one or more pals in the neighborhood. It would be real easy to go around a corner and come face to face with a ball bat, a knife, or a gun in the hand of someone who does not practice good safety habits.

My reason for carrying a pistol is to protect the lives of myself, my family, and other innocents in my immediate vicinity. That's all - I am not committed to using it to protect property in the absence of a mortal threat, nor to using it to see criminals brought to trial. I can understand being hacked off at seeing your property taken, but being hacked off is not a good reason to use a gun or to put yourself in danger by pursuing a criminal. The police are trained and equipped for that - I am not.

We have been advised many times by LEOs on this forum that what they most want from us is good witness information. I will let them work as a team, using body armor and, when necessary, long guns, to apprehend BGs. They have my deep and everlasting gratitude for the work they do. A chubby old guy in a shirt and tie and bifocals does not have a place in any dustups that he can avoid.
 
Kmar40 said:
And if you have a civil defense attorney that takes 5 figures to defeat a pro se jailhouse defendant, your insurance company has an idiot for an adjuster.
Click to expand...

First of all, you've misstated my secondary point. My point was that going to trial in a civil matter will cost you five figures easy - not that it would cost five figures to defeat a pro-se plaintiff filing from federal prison in most cases. You seem to have confused the two ideas.

The secondary point leads to the primary point - which is that I often see people here talking about "The jury will set me free" as Plan A. It shouldn't be Plan A. Relying on the jury for your freedom should be more like the last trench in a long line of defenses.

Unrelated to either point, I don't understand your reference to an insurance adjuster since it strikes me as unlikely that an insurance company is going to defend you against an intentional act.
 
Only a really bad attorney would not ad a few counts that were not intentional torts. They want insurance money, not a personal judgment which would be easily bankrupted away by anyone at least as smart as O.J. (that's pretty much everyone).

Many states require insurers to defend their insureds against intentional court claims even if the insurer doesn't have to idemnify against judgments.
 
My two cents according to my training.

A Citizens summary arrest is when a Citizen takes a person into custody for commiting a crime. And that Citizen holds that person until police can deliver him to police custody. The Citizen must then appear in court and swear out a criminal complaint against the person they detained. Based on their own information, testimony, and evidence. Security Guards do it all the time.
When the citizen holds a person against his or her will that person is under summary arrest. If the same person ramains by consent, or other reason ... such as stupidity there has been no arrest. The citizen who made the arrest does not represent the government, and is under no obligation to give the so-called Miranda warnings. Once the police have arrived, and taken the arrested person into custody they will have to advise him if there is any interrogation.

The big drawback is that Citizen making the arrest must be 100% correct. If the summary arrest is made based on incorrect information or a misunderstanding of law... That arrest becomes invalid. That leaves the Citizen who made the arrest subjest to answer for his own actions in a criminal, and or civil court.

The same citizen could pettition the courts for an arrest warrant based on the same information they would have made the summary arrest. Only after obtaining a warrant the arrest would have withstood judiciaL review, and be based upon probable cause.

There are several differences between a Citizen making a summary arrest, and a Police Officer doing the same. The biggest difference being indemnification.( not being held personally liable in civil court) In other words the police when they make a mistake are usually indemnified by the municipality, or state. Federal officers purchase tort insurance for this. Although this may have changed. One way I had it describe to me by a lawyer. All the average citizen has is his home, his savings, his investments, and his paycheck. These are what you risk loosing by making citizens arrests. The way he describes it... every police car is towing a, invisible trailer filled with lawyers and money. Always call the police. Let them handle things, thats what you pay taxes for.
 
My two cents according to my training.

A Citizens summary arrest is when a Citizen takes a person into custody for commiting a crime.
Click to expand...

Glenn has given a pretty good summary of the situation you might find yourself in and it seems applicable in quite a number of jurisdictions. The law where I live is different to that of the US in a number of details but the overall tenure is similar.

Under our law you can make a citizen's arrest if the crime carries a penalty of three years or more, or if the crime takes place between 9pm and 6am (don't ask me why). But, and it's a big one, if you are wrong, you are open to prosecution for wrongful arrest, and if you restrain a person from leaving the scene you may be prosecuted for holding someone against their will.

It's a lot to get right.
 
Done it twice. I'd say your best bet is to be quick on the cell and be a great witness. I put myself in some pointless danger where a quick phone call with a "Suspect Present" (if you listen closely you'll hear patrol cars going to full throttle- I did) would have worked.
 
Three guys saw someone with a bicycle that had been stolen some time before, pointed a gun at the person when they were not immediately threatened, put cuffs on him, and roughed him up in Florida, and all they face is a civil suit? They're lucky--so far, anyway. Not real smart, mind you, but lucky.

The character and background of their "catch" and what he may have done before this incident are completely irrelevant, in the eyes of the law.

I suggest that, had the gun gone off, we would not be reading about civil proceedings.

Mattter of fact, had the guy been someone who had obtained the stolen property from the burglar--they would really have some 'splainin' to do.
Click to expand...

This exactly how people should respond to thieves...would be alot less crime that way
 
Bounty Hunters are bonded. Unless you just stopped a murder or caught Osama and don't have a way to call the police, being a good witness is less likely to get you in a civil court.
 
I am not going to shoot someone for a bicycle, a TV, or even my car or truck; and I’m not going to play Mall Ninja and citizen-arrest someone for any reason.

The only time I will shoot, kick, stab, punch, or give the finger to someone is to protect me or my family from physical harm.

I will not intervene to stop a robbery at the C-store unless there is the obvious threat of physical harm to me or another innocent person.

Property is replaceable, and at far less cost than defending myself in court.

The guys in the OP were playing cop, and what the hell were they doing with having handcuffs??? What kind of ordinary citizen has handcuffs?

Calling Gecko45, Calling Gecko45. Gecko, are you on the channel? Come back?
 
This [pull a gun on someone when you are not immediately threatened, put cuffs on him, rough him up] [is] exactly how people should respond to thieves...would be alot less crime that way.
Click to expand...

MonsterB, you have it backwards. Pull a gun, or do any of those other things, in response to a thief (except in Texas at night) and the only question is, how many crimes have you committed?

This is not the product of modern legislative action. The principles go way, way back--to before Columbus ever set sail.

In Florida, one may pull his gun if and only if you or a third person is in imminent danger of death or serous bodily harm, or to prevent certain serious crimes, if it is immediately necessary.

In some places, one may also pull a gun if it is necessary to apprehend a criminal--at the time the crime was committed, if the crime was sufficiently serious, and usuually, if you saw it committed. That's not true everywhere--be very careful.

These birds were very lucky indeed to have avoided criminal charges.

Of course, there's still the risk that the civil proceedings could trigger further investigation.

They were also very lucky in that they were not mistaken by armed citizens or law enforcement officers for people engaged in the commission of a serious forcible felony against someone else.

Yes, they were lucky, but they did not show themselves to be very bright.
 
I have to say a new Bicycle would have been cheaper.

The article was pretty worthless in making a decision.

1. I would assume that if you decide to make a citizens arrest use of force laws apply.

2. You can only use the amount of force required to make the arrest.


I see where they put a knee in his back. If the guy complies with the command and gets on the ground and puts his hands behind his back. The knee was uneccessary.

As usual the newspaper article doesn't include any of that information. No information on resistance form the suspect.

The information needed is:

Did the suspect use force to prevent his arrest or attack his pursuers?

:confused:
 
Found any lawsuits by a badguy who got shot by homeowner or other citizen in self-defense? I've seen quite a few. I guess that means we should cower in the corner allowing the bad guys to have their way with us for fear they might (ooooooh aaaaaaah) call a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur.

Defending one's life may result in a lawsuit, but one's life isn't the sort of thing you can replace for a few hundred dollars at the bike store.

The idea that it's ill-advised to risk a lawsuit over a bicycle doesn't come close to implying that it's ill-advised to risk a lawsuit if the alternative is serious injury or death.
 
Do bounty hunters operate under citizen arrest laws?
Click to expand...

Nope technically they do not arrest you again. You are under their surety.
A bondsman or his agent can scoop you up, take you back to jail, and get off your bond at anytime. Whether you skipped your court date or not.

That also goes for any bond where you are out on someone elses surety not just commercial bonds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top