I was recently having dinner at a bar & grill in Kentucky when this happened. A guy was seen in the parking lot with his hands around his girlfriend’s (?) neck, roughing her up. There was some comotion in the place, some folks went outside, and quickly broke things up without any more violence. The woman was not hurt, and the guy seemed to calm down pretty quick. A manager of the restruant and another employee stayed outside with him until the police showed up (about 15 minutes). Eventually, they took the guy away in handcuffs.
Now, during the period of time before the police arrived, most of the folks at the bar (where we all know you can get excellent legal advice) started to say things like “Since you called the cops, he can’t leave”.
I had never heard of this concept. Apparently, if someone calls the cops, then the bad guy is under some kind of obligation to stay put until they arrive.
My question is, is this true? Is this some kind of law? Would the guy be in some kind of deeper trouble if he just walked away from the scene?
If so, what kind of law/rule is this? This raises a bunch of questions in my mind. If I were involved in some altercation, I can easily see circumstances where I might think it’s better for me to just get away from the situation, rather than hang around waiting for somebody to take another swing before the cops show up.
I can’t speak for Kentucky, but there is no such law in Washington State, and I’m not aware of any federal law or rule that would require a person to stay at the scene. When the cops get there a person can be detained, but just making the call wouldn’t trigger that.
I guess one might try stretching a charge of Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer or even Resisting Arrest, but that would be one hell of a stretch and not likely to stand up in court.
One hell of a streatch indeed. First of all, this is just a simple battery. Hands were just around her throat? He didn’t have her on the ground squeezing the last breath from her lifeless body? Then it’s just a battery. Depending on their relationship, it’s battery - domestic violence, but still the same level misdemeanor.
There is no law in Florida (and as mentioned, the US Code) that would require the suspect to stay put. However, there would be a couple situations where the public could use reasonable means to detain him until the police arrived.
If the lady was pregnant, this would now be a felony battery charge. Any person who witnessed this crime could hold the man there under “Citizen’s Arrest”. He could use reasonable means to keep the man there, but there is no law saying the man had to comply. There is no law against resisting a Citizen’s Arrest. The law says the citizen has the right to force the man to stay. It doesn’t mean the man has to stay. So if a witness tried to be a hero, and got his ass beat, that’s on him.
Had the man stolen something from the Bar & Grill, or ran out on his check before going to the parking lot for the choke-fest, he could have been held there by the owner for “Defrauding an Inn Keeper”. Same rules apply though. If the man beat some ass and ran off, he hasn’t committed an additional crime of resisting. Not until a police office arrives does he actually have to stay put because someone ‘said so’.
This seems to be one of those legal urban legends, like if you ask if the person is a police officer and they say no, then [it is entrapment; they can’t arrest you; you get free donuts . . . etc.]
Kinda reminds me of the admonisment given to suspects by every tv police detective, “Don’t leave town.”
It doesn’t have to be a felony for someone to make a citizen’s arrest, a misdemeanor will suffice-as long as you witnessed it. All of the citizen’s arrest statutes that I’ve seen are similar to South Dakota:
Also,
This is not necessarily true. While a person resisting a citizen’s arrest will not be charged with resisting arrest, if it is a good arrest and the citizen gets his ass beat by the perp, the perp has committed battery.
I’m in a hurry so I can’t find any case law, but several legal assistance websites have this:
I searched “flight to avoid arrest” (without the quotes) and found lots of stuff on “flight to avoid prosecution.” Only one reference to “flight to avoid arrest” and that was a Nebraska statute concerning use of an automobile in such an act.
AFAIK, there is no law in Kentucky requiring a suspect to remain at the scene of the alleged crime just because a civilian told him to. However, in the case of citizen’s arrest, you have the right to use reasonable force to hold such a suspect. As such, people will sometimes say, “I called the police, so you can’t leave,” not meaning, “You’re legally obligated to stay here until the police come and deal with your sorry ass,” but rather, “We’re not letting you leave until the cops show up.”
IANA legal expert, but here in Oregon, where I reside, the law says that if the police are called out on a domestic dispute call, then one or both of the parties is going to jail. Now, I don’t know the exact phrasing of that law, and I hope that it includes provisos for false reports, but still - the idea is that the state is very serious about domestic violence. I know a person who did go to jail under this law.
The situation that Race Bannon described could be interpreted as domestic violence. There were witnesses to corroberate that the man was physically assaulting the woman. If Kentucky (where this scenario takes place) has such a law (and I believe Oregon is not the only state where it exists), then there’s a plausible explanation. For what it’s worth.
I doubt anyone here would argue that the actual assault in the parking lot was not a crime. The question is whether departing after the police were called is a *separate * crime. As far as I can tell, it isn’t.
Leaving the scene is about the only one I can think of.
And there are a variety of leaving the scene statutes.
For instance, here is Michigan’s regime:
[Other statutes impose more serious liability for various types of injury or death] http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-300-1949-VI-ACCIDENTS
Note that none of the statutes requires the driver to wait for the police. I once represented a guy who flipped his truck over while drunk. He wasn’t injured and the only damage was to his own vehicle. I successfully defeated a charge of leaving the scene of the accident because he had no obligations under former section 619, which did not refer to police officers at all. Under the current statute, if you were unable to give your information to the other driver, you could be charged with violating one of these statutes.
Of course, this is Michigan law, YMMV, I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice (or a pipe), etc.
Sorry - now that I’ve had some caffeine, I see that my reading comprehension of the OP was somewhat faulty. I thought the issue in question was whether the man had to go to jail just because the police had been called. My bad.
I’m not terribly familiar with Citizen’s Arrest, but wouldn’t assaulting someone, regardless of whether or not they are attempting a Citizen’s Arrest be punishable? You imply that it isn’t.
You make it sound like the offender has a choice in the matter that’s different than if a police officer arrested them.
Damn you! Now I have my work cut out for me. After I post this, I will try to dig up a good cite for you. The problem, is I am not sure where a citizen gets the authority to arrest in Florida. I’ve never found or been shown a statute on. I believe the power actually comes from a lot of case law. Which would explain why the citizen’s arrest rules are different in Florida than in states that actually have a statute for it. However, the rules regarding a citizen’s arrest are outlined in the front of the statute book in the yellow section. (Kinda like Cliff’s Notes… An officer’s quick reference for certain scenarios). If I can’t find that, I will try to find a text I have written by a former state attorney. Anyway, going from memory I’ll tell you that it goes something like this:
All a citizen’s arrest is in Florida, is a detention of that suspect by use of reasonable force for a reasonable amount of time. Basically, you can hold someone down while you wait for a cop.
For a citizen to act under this authority, the following conditions MUST be met:
a) The suspect must have committed a FELONY
b) The citizen must have SEEN him do it, and know the act was in fact a felony
A citizen has no right to arrest on probable cause like you suggested above. He has to witness the event. A citizen cannot detain a suspect while he investigates whether a felony was committed, or whether in fact it was the suspect who did it.
A citizen has no right to detain. Any “detention” by a citizen is by definition, a citizen’s arrest, and it MUST meet the requirements I listed or it becomes an unlawful imprisonment. And the good samaritan has now become the felon.
God, I hope I’ve explained that well.
Chairman Pow,
The suspect has the right to resist your efforts. You can use reasonable force to keep him there, but he has the right to both defend himself, and escape. He does not have the right to become an aggressor, though. So, while he can shove you off or push you down, he can’t then jump on you and give you a beat down. But it’s possible you could get hurt from his methods of legal self-defense.
Basically, think of a citizen’s arrest in Florida like a “non-liability” rule for a good samaritan who caught a felon in the act. It doesn’t give you police powers or anything near. What it does, is say the officer cannot arrest you for unlawful imprisonment nor can the suspect sue (that’s sue and WIN) you for your actions provided you met the requirements I listed. I am convinced this rule is burried under years and years of case law. But I dont know of any specific cases that were the fundamental building blocks of the Citizen’s Arrest law.
Agreed. As I said (just now I mean. I wasn’t clear on it before), the perp cannot become an aggressor. But it is possible for the “hero” to sustain all kinds of injuries from the perp defending himself. He could get pushed to the ground, punch, etc. Though these would normally be battery, they are not battery if a person is defending himself. That includes defending himself from a citizen’s arrest.
The reason? There are statutes that outline what battery is and it isn’t. And it doesn’t make exceptions for a citizen’s arrest – only lawful Police Arrests.
One learns something new everyday. After much digging, I found my old text book. Not sure I can really cite it though, because it’s basically study notes by the instructor, Dr. Riechard. Dr. Riechard was the Florida State Attorney for whatever district Miami is in close to 20 years. He currently teaches at the Hillsborough Police Academy and is regarded some what as a legal encyclopedia.
Anyway… it sucks regardless. All it has is one freakin sentence under Arrest Laws that states:
“The student will Explain that a private citizen may arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence.”
That’s it?? I know we talked about this for hours. And I got an “A” on the test
I really wish I had a pocket statute book. I know it explains accepted practices of citizen’s arrest in the front yellow pages.
I was not satisfied with just one little sentence, so I did some research.
It seems Florida is running off lots of case law where the common law definition of Citizen’s Arrest is used.
It was in Phoenix v Florida that the court “observed that a private citizen has the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence” 455 So. 2d at 1025
With that said, I found various other cases where it appears Florida is entertaining the entire common-law definition: “A private citizen may arrest a person who in the citizen’s presence commits a felony or breach of the peace, or a felony having occurred, the citizen believes this person committed it.” - Edwards v Florida for example.
But shit, man… I know what I was taught! And I do think it’s worth noting that the situations where the state is entertaining the entire common law definition of citizen’s arrest, it is doing so to allow an officer to arrest outside his jurisdiction. None of them were actually granting a “real citizen” or non-police officer to arrest for a felony without actually witnessing it. Further, all the “breach of peace” misdemeanor “citizen’s arrests” were involving officers outside their jurisdiction. Though I don’t think the court would deny that a citizen who physically prevented a drunk person from driving was within the scope of a “citizen’s arrest for breach of peace.”
But I didn’t find any proof of some citizen getting away with arresting some other citizen for a felony he did not witness, or for some “public offense”. I will no longer argue that it’s not possible to do in Florida. But I’ll say it’s not a commonly accepted practice.
Maybe Florida does need a statute that spells it all out. Things would be much more cut and dry. We do have SS. 941.14 that says a citizen can arrest someone and turn him over to the magistrate if he knows that person has a felony warrant issued for his arrest.
Why can’t we just add to that?
My thanks to everybody’s comments. I was in the minority at the bar in believing that the guy was under no obligation to stay put and wait for cops. The topic of Citizen’s arrest crossed my mind, but nobody at the bar used this as an explanation anyway - so I didn’t want to get into that. I don’t know what was said to the guy, I watched it all safely from a barstool, whilst filling myself with ribs and beer. The police car blocked my car, so I had to order another round before I could go.
At the time, I was quite suprised that the guy stayed put. Nobody touched him, that I saw. If it were me, even if I were remorseful, I think I would have walked away rather than deal with waiting around.
A very similar scenario happened in Panama City a couple of months ago. Sadly, the outcome was not the same. When a good samaritan intervened, the jerk who was beating his girlfriend pulled out a pistol and shot him in the head.
