Talk:Citizen's arrest

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Merger proposal

The subpage Citizen's_arrest_in_the_United_States duplicates without expanding the same section from this article, and is of approximately the same scope as other national sections. Unless someone can meaningfully expand it, it should be merged. Pouletic (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Operator873^CONNECT 01:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really unbiased (2023)

Does this part of the article sound unbiased: In recent years, vigilante wannabe superheroes have been taking advantages of citizen's arrests and believe it grants them superiority and to further boost their overinflated ego. They sometimes use "reasonable" (more like violent) force when apprehending a suspect and they like impersonating police officers by wearing stab vests and walkie-talkies. - 04 Oct 23 (not experienced with Wikipedia editing)

assessments

I have added a reference link for the Canadian Criminal Code. In general, this page is very weak, as it is just a lay interpretation of legal terms, and needs a lot of work from people with legal backgrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120881hr (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the gaps mentioned below, the lack of references and perhaps a history of the devealopment of a citizens arrest legality wise hold this to a sart class for the moment.--SGGH 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to do one in Scotland? Maccoinnich 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - I'll get round to finding the scottish laws regarding citizen's arrests and also update the England and Wales section for the amendments made by SOCPA 2005. Barry m 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external Yahoo link at the bottom does not actually describe how to make a citizen's arrest, contrary to the article title. The link in the Yahoo article that supposedly points to the citizen's arrest guidelines is broken. -- Anonymous 17:27, 19 Decemeber 2005 (CST)

What are the rights of the accused if arrested by a non-police officer? For example, is any statement made to a civilian inadmissable in court of not proceeded by a Miranda warning (memorized from Law and order re-runs)?

In the UK the PACE caution is only required of persons with a duty to enforce legislation (can include local government officers, fire officers or even store detectives). Esthameian 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any circumstances that allow a citizen's arrest to be performed upon a law enforcement officer? -- Brian Adams, 21:51, 12 April 2006
- Yes, you have to somehow disarm the police officer first, or they will simply shoot you. Liu Bei 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer is no in most states in the United States. A citizen may not resist the government even if the agent is performing an illegal action. Pyrogen 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPOV question on the "Dangers" section: you ought to make clear that most LEO's and LEA's strongly advise people to call police if they witness a crime, and that the views expressed are those of the LEO's and LEA's, not those of Wikipedia.org. I'm sure we all agree that a law-enforcement agency's advice on such matters deserves the most serious consideration, and that passing along that advice is a valuable public service. But that does not mean that you necessarily agree with that advice, or give the appearance of such agreement. --Temlakos 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that comment. I removed part. It should be rephrased before possibly being put back in. --Howdybob 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dangers sections: It looks like it was lifted from some polic website. It reads like a PSA. Seems like a NPOV issue.--User:Ozoneliar

Liberal POV

Sean Black removed this "silly warning":

In most cases a general call for help or an emergency call may be more appropriate than an attempt at a citizen's arrest.

I agree that it's silly and that Wikipedia should not endorse it, let alone use it as a warning. However, it should be included in a modified form.

This is a fairly good summary of the Liberal point of view that people should not take matters of law enforcement into their own hands - ever! - but should leave it all to "the authorities". It relates to Gun control advocacy: private citizens should not use pistols or rifles to discourage robbery or assault (even in self-defense) but should (1) avoid resisting the criminal and (2) try to get away and/or call the police. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, stop having a political name-calling session in the middle of the talk page. The warning doesn't really belong because it's not a fact about citizen's arrests, but an opinion about their safety and suitability. --joeOnSunset 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal has different meanings in different countries - not useful in this sort of discussion Esthameian 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risky?

In the UK section we have "These powers are rather risky to use, since it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an indictable or either way offence has been committed. If no offence has been committed,... the arrest was unlawful.". Surely this eventuality is covered by the "reasonable grounds for suspecting" clause. --Shantavira 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasonable grounds to suspect" applies to the knowing whether someone is in the act of comitting and indictable offence or that you suspect them to be guilty of an indictable offence. It does not relate to whether or not the offence in itself is summary or indictable. Unfortunately, you have to know how it is tried yourself e.g. assault occasioning ABH, GBH, burglary, theft, robbery and some criminal damage are either way/indictable leopheard (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my conclusion too, from reading the act. Constables get the additional power to arrest on reasonable suspicion that an offence is going to be committed. Otherwise the wording is exactly the same. Case law may be differ between the two cases of course. User:pharm 17:20, 30 Oct 2006

The wording is VERY significantly different. The threshold for a lawful arrest under s24 is low; that for s24A is very, very high. And the voluminous s24 reports seem largely irrelevant to the almost unreported s24A (perhaps because s24A does not attract public funding). The original "risky" comment has it right.Notlegaladvice (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this page from www.askthe.police.uk for the current guidance on this issue from the UK police. User:pharm 17:33, 30 Oct 2006

There may be a need to add information about if there is a campiegn or move to make a citizens arrest against the law due to such significant safety issues.

The text is infelicitous. Suggest replacement of substantive statements of law with the actual wording of s24A as amended, as this is clearer and less apt to mislead. As for safety, there is a very high volume of civilian arrest, with concomitant injuries and death. In one recent trial for manslaughter, it was testified that the accused, at the time he was slowly inflicting death by strangulation, gave reasons (to the eye-witnesses objecting to the very public homicide) that amounted to the s24A(4)(d) limb. Wiki might like to reflect on this.Notlegaladvice (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the emphasis - the reasonable suspicion relates to which person committed the offence - you must be certain that an offence has been committed, which usually means seeing it occur.

Matthew Cooper

I can't seem to find any reference to the Matthew Cooper case on the Web. Is there any citation available for it? If not it will probably have to be removed. --Ross UK 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ross UK 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any which way you like

What is an "either way offence"? —Tamfang 07:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Wiki link to Hybrid (= either way ) offences.

"Either way" in short means an indictable offence i.e. one which can be tried either in a magistrates, or crown court. Indictable offences are those of a more serious nature e.g. robbery, criminal damage, rape, drugs posession/selling, etc.

Canada, requirements

In the section on Canada, someone has added a long series of steps that an arresting citizen supposedly must take, but I can't find any reference to some of them in the Criminal Code subsection referenced at the start of that section. As far as I can tell, the arresting citizen does not have to identify himself, tell the arrested citizen why he is under arrest (though it would seem a good idea), or advise the him of any rights such as the right to counsel. If these requirements come from the Code, please reference the appropriate section (and make sure they really apply to the "Arrest without a warrant by any person" section, not just to peace officers). If from case law, provide a link. Otherwise that paragraph should be reduced to just what is covered by the citations available. PeterHansen 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware the requirements that have been listed here (identifying self, advising the person of their rights, etc.) are not, strictly speaking, legally required by private citizens. These steps are taken by police officers in order to make sure that the prisoner's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not violated - because, if they are, the court might just throw out evidence against the accused. For example, if a police officer questions a prisoner and he/she makes an incriminating statement (i.e. admits they're guilty) but hasn't been informed of the right to consult a lawyer then there is a good chance that the courts will throw out the statement as inadmissible evidence. I'm not aware whether the courts would throw out an incriminating statement made to a private individual who made a citizen's arrest. My general understanding is that the Charter of Rights only is intended to limit the actions of governments, not private individuals so I don't think you could use it to have the actions of private individals declared illegal but I may be wrong...

04:53, 06 November, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.179.85 (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, it should be noted that, if you make a citizen's arrest but don't inform the offender that you are, in fact, arresting him then he could use violence against you and claim that he was merely defending himself because he didn't know that you were attempting to arrest him but thought you were merely attacking him. You might even end up being charged with assault yourself on the grounds that, since you made no mention of arrest, you weren't actually making an arrest, simply assaulting the offender. Something to consider.

Here is what auxiliary police are taught, as they rely on cc s464 1 & 2 when arresting: shout a verbal caution to stop (as auxiliary constables are under the police act, they have a right to shout "Police, don't move"). Identify yourself (required of police). Inform the person that they are under arrest (essential). Touch the person (essential). Read the person the required police caution (not required of normal citizen). Detain and turn them over to a peace officer as soon as possible. Use of reasonable force to detain is allowed under the criminal code, but not a good idea for the untrained citizen. 120881hr (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to at least one source^[1], the requirement to identify why a citizen arrest is occurring is required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.29.140 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fundamentals of Law and Security Administration By Mark Anthony Rohlehr, Rohlehr, Mark Anthony

this happened to me - please help!

i was recently beat up by a manager at safeway.

after he wrestled me to the ground and hit me in the face three times, and my blood was everywhere, he claimed citizens arrest.

the police came and arrested me for "shop-lifting" - i admit, i was wrong, but it was not shop-lifting - i thought that the stores offered free samples of the specific product, and most of them do. furthermore, the corporate office said that safeway employees are trained to give free samples if a customer asks for them, and although i did not ask, i do not feel that i was shop-lifting, merely that i made a mistake thinking that i could take a sample without asking because at other stores (of the same chain) they have free samples available.

anyways, i was also charged with battery, because, like a little kid who just beat someone up, his excuse whether it was true or not, was that i "swung at him first"

i swear under penalty of pergury that this was not true.

i was taken to jail, charged with felony commercial burglery, misdemeanor batter, and misdemeanor resisting arrest.

the resisting arrest was then dropped, and the felony commercial burglery was dropped to misdemeaner petit larceny. -- BriEnBest (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speak to a solicitor - Wikipedia isn't a free legal advice service. DirectEdge (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tf? this is a discussion page on citizens' arrests. please help me... BriEnBest (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a place where we discuss the subject of citizens' arrests, including real life examples on them. this can include the technicalities of them, including real life situations, and what people can do after they happen; if they are illegale or not, etc. i don't know why you are so cold... BriEnBest (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, I merely think it would be best for you to seek professional legal advice relevant to your individual circumstances. Sorry if that came across as being cold, but you did say 'please help me' which implies you want advice of some kind. The best advice I can give you, apart from seek legal counsel, is to research the specific legislation in your jurisdiction regarding the any-person or 'citizen's' arrest powers. DirectEdge (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks bro, i will go to the nevada law library on monday, and check out what the specifics are about citizens' arrest.

I need to find out if he is required by law to state that he is making a citizens' arrest before he grabbed me. If he was allowed (in any circumstances) to hit me in the face, and if he was allowed to make a citizens' arrest at all since what he suspected me of committing was a misdemeanor, if that - i guess that's just the state law though... thanks peace, BriEnBest (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to brush up on your writing skills. Based on what you've provided, I would peg you as a member of the criminal class 2600:8800:218F:2D00:AD4C:FA52:B32B:AF5D (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What whining. You thought they were free samples, huh? Well, you must've run -- nobody tackles anybody right out of the blue. When you run, people think you've stolen something quite valuable. Or you've got warrants. For all he knew, you could've been America's Most Wanted. Congratulations for the manager brave enough to chase you down. Of course he didn't have to say "citizen's arrest" -- see shopkeeper's privilege. Hopefully you've learned your lesson -- now how about learning grammar? 76.115.59.36 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks worth citing under See Also in the main article, so I did. LCE(LCE talk contribs) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to beat up on a guy (verbally), without having possession of all of the facts, from behind the mask of anonymity. Coward. Oh wait look I can do that too. 217.75.194.148 (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Can someone make a "citizen's arrest" (grab someone and restrain them) without stating that they're making a citizen's arrest? Wouldn't this seems to the person that's being grabbed as just an aggressive and/or violent action?

in nevada, yes.

In what, if any, cases can the person making the citizen's arrest punch the person they are arresting in the face? If the person that got arrested (by a citizen) is bleeding, when the cops see them, are the police supposed to question and/or arrest the one who made the citizen's arrest for beating them up?

Use of force by private person in carrying out an arrest: amount of force; deadly force. in securing or attempting an arrest persuant to NRS 171.126, a private person may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. the use of deadly force in carrying out such an arrest is unreasonable as a matter of law unless the arrestee poses a threat of serious bodily injure to the private arrestor or others."

Whether force can be used and how much would depend on the law of the specific jurisdiction. In Canada a person who is making a legal arrest can use reasonable force against the person being arrested. How much force is "reasonable" depends on the circumstances. For example, if the offender is attempting to fight with you or is attempting to get away then you would be allowed to use more force than if he or she didn't resist in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.15.153 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make a citizen's arrest on someone who is under legal age? (BriEnBest (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think so, yes. Questions answered by BriEnBest (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs case histories for each country cited, and thereis the question of whether a citizen making an arrest hasthe right to use reasonable force if the suspect/ felon is resisting arrest. Does the citizen have to read the felon his / her rights as a policeman would? Does a citizen keep a suspect at the scene of a crime or transport them to the nearest police station, no matter how distant? Could a reluctant to co-operate felon claim later to having been kidnapped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.181.1 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA - support by police? Miranda requirements?

I read some years ago (I realize thats unsourced; can't begin to find it now) that the concept of "citizens arrest" was considered archaic in the USA, and is generally discouraged by police now. (This may have been a trend during the 70s liberalism). That said, can anyone answer a couple of questions:
1) Do actual citizens arrests still take place or is it indeed obsolete, perhaps due to lack of support by police and the judiciary?
2) Or is CA really just detainment until the police respond?
3) How does CA square with the Miranda requirement (reading of rights)?
Thanks to anybody knowledgeable enough to respond to these specifically. Engr105th (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) It does still happen. See Hudson v. Commonwealth VA. It also may happen with privately contracted security individuals with no government sanctioned arrest authority. They may make a citizen's arrest and then transport the person to the magistrate.

2) Physically it is just a detainment. In areas with magistrates it could be feasible to take the person before them as a citizen and testify. Legally, it is an arrest. There is no provision for a citizen's detainment. If you detain the individual prior to police arriving, it is a citizen's arrest.

3) Miranda requirement is widely misunderstood due to Law and Order and the COPS show. There is no requirement to provide the warning if the arresting individual is not interrogating the individual. Since a citizen arrest usually requires the arresting citizen to be present and view the crime committed, subsequently interrogating the violator is unnecessary. Furthermore, the only persons who must provide the miranda warning prior to custodial interrogation are state-agents. It's similar to the 4th amendment, search and seizure rules don't apply to private citizens. I can open your trunk and find the dead body without a search warrant and without any probable cause and you'll still be guilty. Mojodaddy (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Mojodaddy's responses are dead on, BTW. Mine are:]

A1 - Yes, they happen. Security guards and shopkeepers are the most common examples, but "ordinary" people still do it, but not very often. Most laymen know there is a thing called "citizens arrest," but they don't know the details and therefore are uneager to experiment. The cops don't like it much, except when it helps them or if it involves "trained" people the cops sometimes coach to do it. Cops see it as a recipe for trouble, which it can be, and, more subtly, as an infringement upon their professional prerogatives. The trouble potential is real: A and B are in a store. A sees B surreptitiously take take a set of diamond earrings from a display case. A tells B to wait while A calls the police. B tries to leave and A grabs B. B fights with A, A grabs a chair and tries to smash B's head. B, fearing for his life at this level of force, stabs A to death; etc. The jury will decide. In NY, at least, there is not crime of "resisting" a citizen's arrest and the lack of familiarity with the rules means that disputes and physical resistance will be common. In the example above, what if the earrings were only worth $200, a misdemeanor theft only in state X and under state X's law citizens' arrest is only legal for felonies? Whupps. What if "B" was the store owner's son and had permission to that the earrings? I think that this is all great stuff, but you can see why those in authority/those who wish to enslave us would think ill of it.

A2 - It depends on the law of the state. Some (probably most) state allow the person to be removed forthwith to a location where they cab be turned over to the law. NC does not allow this, but it is still an arrest, but one with more restrictions on the arrester. All the confusion on the current article "detainment" vs "arrest" is pure wiki garbage of the classic type brought on by the the NC statute's using "detainment" as a term of art. Trust me, its an arrest.

A3 - As said, the Miranda doctrine does NOT affect the legality of arrests. The absence of Miranda warnings will affect ONLY the admissibility at trial of statements made by a person in (5th Amend.) custody in response to interrogation by state actors. If a defendant's statement is taken in violation of the Miranda warning requirement, it may not be used by the prosecution in it case-in-chief against him. That being said, it may be admitted as a prior inconsistent statement if the defendant elects to take the stand and contradicts the statement. Moreover, any evidence (e.g. physical evidence, contraband) derived from the illegally acquired statement is not excludable as fruit of the poisonous tree as Miranda is a creature of the courts and not the Constitution (and yet is incorporated against the states, which makes even less sense than substantive due process).

Criticality (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Criticality and Mojodaddy - thanks much for your responses....much appreciated...Engr105th (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA - Washington State description misleading

I removed the following: The state of Washington does not have a specific statute granting citizen's arrest powers. However there have been several state court decisions rendered that affirm and uphold common law citizen's arrest power for (a) felonies committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or (b) misdemeanors committed in the presence of the person making the arrest provided the misdemeanor also constituted a breach of the peace.

This is misleading. RCW 9A.16.020 Paragraph (2) (3) (4) provide for the use of force for citizens arrest or detention depending on the circumstances:

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

The statement I removed indicated (erroneously) that: A) There are no statutes for citizens arrest, B) A felony must be committed in the presence of the arrestor and C) Arrest can be made for misdemeanors in certain circumstances.

I think that a special caveat re: Washington State is not necessary and confuses the issue. If a caveat is to be made, it should be made to accurately reflect the facts, which are virtually identical to most states.

M.O. 207.171.180.101 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

expansion request

I think we need more information, like history and controversies, than simply a list of country regulations on the topic --Ipatrol (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Canada section wrt Section 27

Section 27 (of the Criminal Code) concerns reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime, not in arresting someone. I've removed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.33.128 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question concerning Citizen's arrests

I've got a question. If the suspect fights with the citizen performing the arrest, is it still considering resisting arrest? I think it may be, but, it may not be. I hope my question isn't too vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.16.254 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I still have no answer to my question. --205.211.16.254 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, assault with intent to resist arrest is the same for public & police leopheard (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Do you know, if it applies, also, in Canadian law? Thanks, so much, for the reply. --205.211.16.254 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine so, as Canadian law is often similar to UK being a Commonwealth etc. Have a look on a .ca government website leopheard (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10-4. Thank you, sir. --208.96.121.65 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it ever happen?

This article doesn't address the most obvious questions.

1)How often do these arrests happen? 2)How often are the arrestees charged by the police, after being brought in by some random? 3)How often are they prosecuted, either by the CPS or privately? 4)How often are they convicted? BillMasen (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens arrests are relatively common in the cases of shoplifting and assaults. The majority of shoplifting cases are dealt with by the police, often through PNDs. Assaults might or might not be charged or PND'd. Private prosecutions are very rare in the UK. If you feel this sort of information should be in the article, I suggest you ask the police or the CPS for the information directly. ninety:one 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power to arrest for poaching

The power was repealed, as is stated in the text, by para 38 of Schedule 7 to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the relevant wording being:

So much of the enactments set out in the second column of the Table below as confers a power of arrest without warrant upon ... persons in general ...shall cease to have effect ...

Para 2(4) to Schedule 1 to the Theft Act 1968 is listed in the table. ninety:one 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians

What is the legal situation when someone attempting to make a citizen's arrest is forcefully prevented — as, for example, in the recently-reported attempts to arrest Tony Blair for war crimes at his book-promotion appearances? Who is is legally in the wrong, and why?

Should this sort of situation have a section in the current article? It seems to be becoming increasing frequent… Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States section in serious need of revamping

This section talks at length about "strict constructionism" and has a very long quote from California law. Its also poorly sourced. It needs to be a general overview of the rule in the US.

We can do a state by state list but perhaps in a different article? In the meantime, I'm editing it to be a broader understanding of US law with good sources.Randi75 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citizen's arrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140220170852/http://www.lawsociety.com.au:80/community/publicationsandfaqs/legalquestions/Underarrest/025900 to http://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/publicationsandfaqs/legalquestions/Underarrest/025900

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Citizen's arrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "citizen" could be moved lower in the article

The point of "citizen's" arrest is only that this person is not a law enforcement officer. So the word "citizen" is used as a metaphor for a non-lawman. Of course, police officers are also "citizens", yet Citizen's arrest authorization is not about them. The law that calls it, "any person arrest" is pedantic for stating that the person who has these powers does not need to be a British citizen. The recommendation here is that this technicality be moved to the bottom of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#Legal_and_political_aspect which is the section that immediately follows the Introduction. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Citizen's arrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Belgium and The Netherlands / Euro zone commonalities

It could be of encyclopedic value to add sections for Belgium and The Netherlands as neighbour countries of them are present in the article.

Additionally, there could be a European edict governing citizen's arrests.

I propose someone researches these items and updates the article accordingly.

Aethalides (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical sentence

"Use of the second power above can be risky if not used correctly as it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an offence has been committed, of which in itself needs to be indictable or either way offence." Can someone please fix this? Equinox ◑ 22:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded it Apeholder (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK Power of Entry disambiguation / clarification needed

The section on the UK appears to claim that *citizens* are given power of entry under certain circumstances by the same law which provides them the power to perform a citizen's arrest. However the source cited gives *police* power of entry under certain circumstances by a completely different law. I think it should be clarified that citizens of the UK do not have power of entry under any current laws. If you need to enter another person's property in order to save a life, you are still liable for trespass if the property owner did not expressly permit your entrance. Police have power of entry in some circumstances, and fire and rescue teams are granted some power of entry under the Fire and Rescue Act 2004 (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/contents ) - but as far as I am aware and can discover through primary research, not even paramedics get any specific legislation allowing entry to save life and limb. It's assumed that trespass and damage caused by a paramedic is probably implicitly consensual since they are there to save lives, but in non-emergency cases paramedics should seek explicit permission to enter from the property owner.213.209.114.24 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the citizen's arrest England and Wales power doesn't provide a power of entry - the common law breach of the peace power does. When a Constable arrest for a BoP, he's doing so as a member of the public. The power itself is around 1,000 years old so the idea of a Constable was a very long way off. There's so more info here, I'll try and find something more in depth Apeholder (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some more references to the article that help clarify. Apeholder (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the Finnish page about the subject has not been linked by bot (or anyone). How to add?

There should be link to the subject in the Finnish Wikipedia Yleinen_kiinniotto-oikeus

How to add new languages? Did only find how to remove them… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.10.242 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales

Hi Apeholder (talk · contribs) - I can see you've re-added some content to the page that I've previously removed. I did cut quite a lot out because this section was getting pretty unwieldy in length and it read to me as more of a discussion of concepts around citizen's arrest which I thought was a little in-depth for a by-country article. I'm also concerned that we're going into quite a lot of original research here, though I do appreciate the time you've obviously spend researching the subject. I thought it would be helpful to discuss some of the bits you've reinstated, as there are some issues with it.

"Any person" powers can be used to arrest before an offence occurs as long as the offence in question falls within the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. This act creates the offence of an attempted offence, as long as the offence being attempted is an indictable. For this to apply, the offence must actually be in the process of being attempted – preparatory steps are not sufficient.

This is fairly novel and having looked into it further I think it would benefit from a reliable source to support it - I should imagine it is a fairly untested area of the law and I would be concerned that we were introducing original research here.

Futhermore, the definition of what constitutes a "crime" was clarified in R v Jones (Margaret)^[1] which stated under the S3 CLA1967 meaning, it was held to be any domestic crime in England/Wales. Kent Police have released a brief yet comprehensive guide on reasonable force.^[2]

I'm not sure what relation this has to the text about attempts that precedes it? The bit about the Kent Police guide is rather out of place here - and the guide is designed for police officers in public order situations so I'm not really sure it's relevant here?

A citizen's arrest is a form of lawful custody and anyone attempting to flee may be guilty of attempting to escape from lawful custody. Furthermore, the offence of 'assault with intent to resist arrest or lawful apprehension or detainer of himself' may apply if the arrestee assaulted the arrestor under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.^[3] Both assault with intent to resist arrest/lawful apprehension and escaping from lawful custody are indictable, the former being so by the mode of trial of the offence, the latter is a common law offence and therefore indictable only. Therefore, these offences - whether fully carried out or merely attempted - are citizen's arrestable in themselves.

I included this text, in a more concise form, in the main section above. I'm not sure that we need to go into the level of detail of explaining that those two offences are indictable - I'm not sure it adds anything to the context because in it would be assumed that a citizen's arrest has already been effected - if the reader wants to go to this level of detail they can go into the articles on those offences.

A citizen's arrest may also be made technically for a warrant for an arrest if the offence listed is indictable as there is no law prohibiting a re-citizen's arrest or the number of times they may be arrested for it nor is there a time limit. The warrant would satisfy the requirement for the arrester to have reasonable grounds to suspect the guilt of the arrestee. For example, if an offender failed to attend Crown court this would satisfy two conditions for a lawful citizen's arrest at a later date - that the offence had taken place and that it was obviously indictable by way of being tried in Crown court.

I removed this because it is pretty novel and I think fairly questionable. It is not accurate on the face of it (the circumstances described would not be an arrest [on] a warrant, but an arrest under s24A PACE), I think it misses the requirements of s24A around necessity, but most importantly it is not supported by any reliable sources. If you are aware of any then please do say - but I think this constitutes fairly significant original research as it stands.

Although not technically citizen's arrest powers, any person also has the power to arrest for a common law breach of the peace which also provides any person with a power of entry. Section 3 Criminal Justice Act 1967 also provides any person the power to apprehend a person unlawfully at large e.g. an offender on a recall to prison or in the circumstances where someone has managed to escape from lawful custody.

I did leave a sentence about breach of the peace in, but I think the suggestion that the powers generally available in relation to a breach of the peace allow a non-police officer to force entry would require a reliable source - I struggled to find many reliable ones about any person powers in relation to BoP so cut it down to the bare minimum. The reference to section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 should I assume be a reference to the Criminal Law Act 1967, and that Act does not provide a power for anyone to apprehend anyone else, but rather provides that where a power exists reasonable force may be used to exercise it - if you think otherwise you would need to provide a reliable source to support that. i hope this explains some of my thought process as to why I removed or reworded these bits, and what I see the problems as being. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! ninety:one 23:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Georgia repeal

[1] Georgia has repealed its citizens' arrest law that was written in 1863 for purposes of rounding up escaped slaves during the Civil War, and used to justify stuff like lynchings since then. Other states may follow with similar repeals. This should probably go in the article. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:B6C3 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nightwalking

The USA section lists : The term historically included theft, "nightwalking". However, the linked article on night walking mentions just the U.K.

Teun Spaans (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Form and prevalence in practice?

As a reader I came to this article hoping to learn not only about the legal status of "citizen's arrest", but also information about what form it normally takes, how much it's really carried out, or at least some examples. I hope someone with more time and expertise than me can add something along these lines to the article. Many thanks in advance! GeoEvan (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fundamentals of Law and Security Administration By Mark Anthony Rohlehr, Rohlehr, Mark Anthony

[2] ttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060329/jones-3.htm

[3] ttp://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-briefing.pdf

[4] ttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/38

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]