Hypothetically, let’s say a group of citizens witnessed an unarmed, non resisting crime suspect being repeatedly tasered by police officers.
Could these ordinary citizens place the police officers involved under citizens arrest for assault? And if so, do these ordinary citizens have the right to physically restrain the cops and take away their tasers if they do not comply?
My Libertarian side really, really wants to say they do, but I doubt that’s the way it would go down in the real world. I think the arresting citizens would be tazered or shot themselves and booked for assault on a police officer, or at the very least ‘Interference of a police officer in the course of his duties’. It would make a very good court case to be no part of.
The best I could google up was this link:
First answer was a yahoo who thinks cops can’t legally give give tickets, because a summons to court is a judicial function, and cops are an arm of the executive branch. Separation of powers, don’t you know.
Did I mention that I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on on TV?
IANAL, but I would say that theoretically yes. Any citizen has the right to make an arrest, so it’s pretty clear on that end. And a police officer, even while on duty, is not immune from arrest, so it seems likely there are situations where he could be legally arrested by a citizen.
In reality - ain’t no way it’s happening. Among other factors, any citizen arresting a police officer would almost certainly be immediately counter-arrested by the officer for interfering with the performance of his duties.
Heh, something tickles me about the idea of a “counter-arrest”.
Citizen: “I’m arresting you.”
Police Officer: "Well, I’ll see your arrest, and RAISE you a counter-arrest! Bwah!
Citizen: “Drats. I was bluffing too.” 
The problem lies in the fact that, while a cop is very aware of what the laws are, your average citizen is not. So while it may appear to you average, say, college student, that an act of brutality is going on, in reality it is perfectly lawful and mostly non-harmful use of a compliance tool in order to establish lawful order.
A person could try it, but a private persons arrest is very difficult to make stick. Ask any security guard.
I agree that the odds of the citizens arrest sticking are pretty slim. The citizen trying to ‘make a difference’ would be much better off discretely videotaping the incident and uploading the video to the internet and local media outlet. Sadly, I’m serious.
Yeah. There are enough cases where trained police officers fail to get a conviction in court because a sharp lawyer has pounced upon some obscure mistake they made in the arrest procedure. A citizen would really, really need to know how to lawfully arrest somebody to the freakin’ letter. It’s a situation I’d keep away from.
I’m even unsure about the cases you hear about where criminals are restrained by bystanders until the police arrive. I think even that is dangerous legal territory for the passing samaritans.
Actually, my Target security buddy says they often arrest people with CDs in their pants, etc, and it’s not hard to make it stick. They get people to cop to it all the time, because they have witnesses, and sometimes videotape. The point being that “citizen’s arrests” do happen fairly frequently and get charged, especially from store security.
Oh, and the same guy points out the technicality that you don’t have to be a legal citizen to arrest people. You can be a legal resident.
We were about 50/50 arrested and taken in/cited and released. I can only think of one I know of that the police decided not to cite and he was like 11-12 years old. Considering his mom’s reaction, he probably would have preferred arrest.
Although it may vary from state to state, a citizen’s arrest usually requires that the crime being committed is a felony. Now, does simple assault qualify as a felony in your state? Probably not. In Ohio, assault is a first degree misdemeanor. And tasers do not cause “serious physical harm” as it is defined in the Ohio Revised Code and thus not a felony. So to answer the OP, if an ordinary citizen was witnessing officers do as he described, he better not interfere. However, a call to their chief might be appropriate, and a lawsuit from the victim would probably be par for the course.
Besides, most people don’t know the “whole story” when they see police in action. Often times they just assume that a completely innocent bystander minding his own business is being deprived of his civil rights by those mean, awful police.
You don’t have to know the “whole story” to perform a lawful arrest. You just have to have reasonable grounds to believe you are witnessing a crime.
I’d think this question would be better if asked about an officer, say, randomly beating some old lady, or spray painting graffiti on cars ext… It’s a whole 'nother story when you start interfering with an officer trying to arrest someone. In that case, you’ll probably do everyone more good by just watching and paying attention, even calling more people over to witness then anything else.
Actually, no. That never happens, at least in the U.S. Sometimes a charged is dismissed because the police have no evidence that was not obtained illegally (e.g., by interrogation of a suspect in custody prior to issuing a Miranda warning).
From a real life incident, 2pac (the rapper) once shot at two off-duty police officers for harassing a guy, and had the charges dropped once it became known that the officers were intoxicated and in possession of stolen weapons, accorcding to wikipedia. Don’t know if that’s repeatable, though.
Gomer made a citizen’s arrest on Barney for making a U-turn in the middle of the block. Andy made Barney pay the fine which led to a half hour of fun.
Yeah, store security guys have a REALLY conservative 7-point guideline that they can use for proper shoplifting arrest procedure. IF they follow those rules, they’ll effect a proper arrest with a very good chance of a conviction, should the DA decide that choice is warranted. I imagine Target’s loss prevention associates stick to those rules pretty tightly for liability reasons.
The cops could have the same 99% batting average if they used similarly strict rules, but the “bulletproof” procedure for store security guys involves seeing the merchandise getting concealed and maintaining line of site with the perp as they progress towards the exits… or similarly restrictive rules, it’s been a while since I read up.
If the police stuck to those rules, OJ Simpson wouldn’t even have gotten investigated. “Well, weren’t any cops there, so we can’t do anything…”
Really not a fair comparison. It’s like comparing the success rate between the lady that takes blood donations at the Bloodmobile to the surgeon at the local general hospital’s trauma unit… the phlebotomist probably has yet to lose a patient, and the surgeon expects to lose several every week.
You’re kidding, right? I think you should be pretty damn sure of whats going on or else you’re asking for an ass whuppin’ yourself along with jail.
And to only “believe” you’re witnessing a crime doesn’t quite fit the probable cause threshold for a lawful warrantless arrest
Um, no. You have to have probable cause to make an arrest, which is significantly different from reasonable grounds (or the correct term, reasonable suspicion).
I don’t know if you guys know so little about the law that you don’t understand it or if you know so much about the law that you’re making fine distinctions that are meaningless in this context. What I was pointing out was that it’s not necessary to have indisputable proof that a person committed a crime in order to arrest them. The determination of their guilt or innocence is made at the trial not the arrest.
And probable cause is created by reasonable grounds (or reasonable suspicion or reasonable belief or sufficient reason).