But I would lose if the concept of citizens arrest is illegal.
Yes. Are you disagreeing that this the legal outcome or that this should be the legal outcome.
I’m saying that of course any citizen can arrest in that circumstance and perform a search incident to arrest, and search the “reach and grab” area. Posters are scoffing at this and saying good luck and that they would sue. But that isn’t the law.
An officer may search a car incident to arrest, no question. I’d love to see the case law you report that allows a citizen to do the same, and not, just secure the person and areas in his immediate reach.
It’s an arrest. Why would the same justifications not be there for the protection of the officer as to a citizen? And as I said, officers outside their jurisdiction, in my state are allowed to make DUI arrests solely be being a citizen. And they cuff, stuff, and search.
I mean these laws are like 800 years old. Posters are acting like I just made this up.
We saw Georgia re-work its citizen arrest law after the Arbery case.
Now, only some very specific cases can a citizen “arrest” another (mostly something like a store employee detaining a shop lifter).
No longer can you tackle someone and be deemed clear of assault or battery charges merely by claiming a citizen’s arrest. I think you will now have to make that case in court and take your chances.
No no no no NO.
I can’t believe I have to explain probable cause to a lawyer.
Throwing out the year plus that weed is legal in my state, the smell of weed does not give anyone probable cause for arrest. It is not probable cause for arrest. My pre-Covid nose telling me that at some point weed was in the car does not mean I can arrest the driver. It gives me probable cause to search the car under the vehicle exception to the 4th amendment. Probable cause for a search does not mean there is probable cause for an arrest. That’s obvious to even a non-lawyer. If there is probable cause for a search but I don’t find anything then there is no probable cause for an arrest even though the smell is still there.
Since there is no probable cause for an arrest go ahead and find the case law supporting “Citizen’s Search.” The common law practice of citizens arrest covers felonies witnessed by the citizen. It does not grant them constitutional exemptions to investigate the possibility of crime.
The rest is just as ridiculous but I’ll leave it be
You are going to be waiting a long time.
Not at all. Basic law says that you don’t have to rule out any lawful action. If you smell alcohol on a guy’s breath, maybe he had two beers for lunch, but maybe he is under the influence. You can investigate.
You keep repeating what your state law is. I am suggesting that law is unconstitutional. The Biden DOJ agrees with me about a similar situation with MO and WV gun laws.
You really can’t think of a difference? You’re not talking about the immediate reaching distance now. You are talking about a closed trunk.
If what you are proposing is even in the vicinity of correct, police departments would be better off asking for Dwight Schrute type volunteers to roam the streets looking for people that smell even slightly like weed. No one would ever prosecute for the weed, but it would be a 4th Amendment free zone to search nearly anyone, and anything near them for more serious contraband.
Then just repeal 800 years of law and have it comport with your new idea. I’m saying what the law is.
That which is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.
800 year? You should have plenty of case law to show us.
You deny that a person arrested in a car for a violation of a drug offense can have their car searched incident to that arrest? I need to cite that?
Belton…Gant. just two controlling cases.
By a private person, of course.
So…how would you react?
You are leaving a restaurant and waiting for the valet to get your car:
Whack-a-Mole (walking by): “You smell like you have been drinking. Don’t move until the police come. I am performing a citizen’s arrest!”
UltraVires: “Yes sir Mr. Mole. I will wait right here because you arrested me and I will follow the law.”
I suspect it would not play out that way but, you seem to think me invoking a “citizen’s arrest” means you have to proceed as if I were a police officer.
Where did those cases make a distinction and why would they?
It would work out like it has for 800 years; maybe one of us acts unlawfully. It will be decided later which you think is a bad thing. “Police officer” is not a magic word. These laws were passed years before professional police.
ISTM citizen arrest laws shield the person making the arrest from consequences.
Should I be free of consequences in the above case? If you ignore me are you guilty of resisting arrest?
Did you have valid probable cause to suspect me of a felony or breach of the peace in your presence? Then yes, I am guilty of resisting a very lawful arrest. Every much as lawful as a professional police officer arresting me.