You are, in my view, correct on this point, and Bricker is wrong, and I see you getting frustrated about the specific question you’re asking. He’s quoting a case that is not directly about the validity of an arrest, but about the liability of the person who makes the arrest in a subsequent lawsuit, because he’s only talking about probable cause, and has only ever been talking about probable cause.
Richard Parker addressed this earlier, but I’ll reiterate what I think is the correct statement of Florida law: there is no rule at present about whether or not an arrest by a private citizen based on probable cause where no crime is actually committed is a valid arrest. Florida courts have cited the common law’s formulation of the rule, though, which answers that question in the negative.
In other words, either it happened in your presence, or you have probable cause and it really did happen, or you get a warrant (in which case, it doesn’t matter if it really happened or not).
ETA: That was supposed to immediately follow my previous post of course. Thank you Jimmy Chitwood for your comment but curse you for interrupting me!
No. This is why I mention Pokorny. Although the teller there did not arrest Pokorny, the court says that if they had, Pokorny would still not have been able to recover damages in a lawsuit for false arrest, because “The jury’s decision that defendant’s teller acted reasonably in believing Pokorny was guilty of the felony of attempting bank robbery would have been final on the elements of malice and probable cause.”
You’re telling me what the judges decided in Pokorny, but you’re not telling me why that decision was supported by the other two decisions you decided. (And you can’t, because it’s not.)
What I said is that the Pokorny decision is not decided by the other two decisions, since both of them explicitly require the commission of a crime. But now it turns out we also have Pokorny, which separately from the other two decisions gives us new information–that commission of a crime is not necessary at least so long as a warrant has been sworn out.
Not crying in the least . Where I live is even easier to get a gun and ‘justice’ – hell, wouldn’t even have to get my hands ‘dirty.’ MF’ would be gone at a snap of my fingers…keep livin’ in paradise. It just not here,
Ok. For the purposes of this discussion, I accept that – but that’s consistent with what I said to start this brouhahaha. In the hypothetical I posed, the breach of peace is committed in the presence of the person doing the arresting. Yes?
Yes, I agree that sounds like a permissible citizen’s arrest. (I am assuming though, that throwing the first punch is never self-defense. If it turned out that Martin’s punch was self defense–and so, afaik, not a "breach of the peace–then Zimmerman’s arresting Martin would not be permissible, since no felony or breach of the peace would have been committed and no warrant sworn.)
Absolutely correct … Which is why I said, “**If **the conflict began with Martin punching Zimmerman…”
If there was some assault or threat against Martin first, such that Martin’s punch was self-defense, then THAT began the conflict, and is outside my hypothetical.
