This week in Beverley Hills the cops advised people to make citizen’s arrests if Justin Bieber continued to hold parties which disrupted the neighborhood. Press sources added that in California “the system allows anyone who is not a police officer to arrest someone for a minor offence, a misdemeanor.”
If that’s correct it sounds decidedly odd. Does this mean that, for instance, if I saw someone attempting to abduct a child or rape a woman in California I would not be permitted by law to make a citizen’s arrest of the suspect? Here in the UK you can make a citizen’s arrest for any crime whatsoever (although you’d better be damn sure there are reasonable grounds for so doing.)
I’m just not getting the point of a citizen’s arrest for misdemeanors only.
It isn’t. Citizens may make arrests for any public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor.
California Penal Code Section 837 states
A Public Offense is a felony, misdemeanor or infraction. I think the police were emphasizing that citizens may make an arrest for any offenses, no matter how minor, and that citizens arrests are not restricted to only major crimes. They were not excluding felonies from the list of offenses citizens can arrest someone for.
Let’s assume that’s accurate and correct. So, in answer to your query:
You would be permitted to effect a citizen’s arrest as abduction of a child and rape of a woman are, IIRC, both felonies in California.
The way I understand it, a law enforcement officer in California cannot make an arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor unless that misdemeanor is committed in the LEO’s presence. Regarding the arrest for felonies: since the LEO doesn’t have to be present when the felony is committed and felonies are (arguably) serious crimes, one may not wish, nor even be equipped, to arrest the purported felon whereas LEOs are generally have more stuff available to them than John Q. Public does.
Nope. You misunderstood. A citizen’s arrest can be effected against any person committing the offense. Now, how practical is it to arrest an armed police officer? Your best bet would be to avail yourself of the citizen’s complaint office (or whatever it’s called in your jurisdiction).
My dad made a citizen’s arrest years ago. Drunk driver all over the road, finally stuck in a ditch. He held on to the guy until the cops came. The cop thanked him profusely until they were out of earshot of the perp, and told my dad, “Don’t you ever do anything like that again.”
aldiboronti, scroll down to the APPENDIX here. This decision was over ten years ago, so to get the updated law in each state, you have to look it up to correlate. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZO.html
The point is that if you actually perform a citizen’s arrest, you better be damn sure a law was broken and you are arresting the person responsible. Otherwise, you are criminally and civilly liable for forcible restrain or confinement, assault, or anything else the victim can argue.
Hence the usual rule is you better have seen the offense yourself and be sure it happened and you have the right person.
(There was a case quite a few years ago, where someone accosted VP Cheney during a ski vacation in Colorado. As I understood it, there was a heated exchange - but no threats - and the two SS assigned to Cheney flagged down a third agent who hadn’t seen the incident. They pointed him in the direction of the departing person and told him to arrest the fellow because an assault on the VP had happened. When the fellow sued for wrongful arrest, the agent had to admit he had not seen the assault, the other agents denied an assault had taken place hung him out to dry. Lawsuit settlements ensued, so to speak.
the moral of the story - whether you are a policeman or a private citizen, you better be really sure you are right to be doing what you are doing.)