Proper Procedure for Citizens Arrest

[shopkeep]

I know this is probably an oddball question to ask, but what is the proper procedure for enacting a Citizen's Arrest? I.E. I have a thug at gunpoint that has attempted to assault my person with what I believe to be deadly force (knife, gun, other weapon), broken into my house, etc. How do I go about making the Citizen's arrest in a lawful manner in CA?

[delloro]

call your lawyer

call the cops

[Tyler]

If he is in your house with a weapon, I would recommend that you empty the magazine into his chest, and ask questions later. It is completely legal, and a much more safe position for a civilian with no law enforcement training. Trying to take custody of the suspect could get you or your family killed. It would be good for you to yell drop the weapon right before you fire, just so you can say you gave the guy a chance. If someone breaks into your house with a weapon, you should assume that they want to kill you or your family. I have talked to many cops about this and they all agree with the above statement. A detective that I knew in the military told me the following: “If they don’t have a weapon that you can see, yell drop the knife, and then take a knife from your kitchen and place it in his hand once he is down. During most break-ins the person goes straight to the kitchen to get a weapon, and the cops will never question it.” Harsh I know, but I was living in Texas at the time and they don’t mess around when it comes to that sort of thing.

[Ericthenorse]

Citizens arrest is not something that is actually effective.... It is most often used when someone other than an officer sees something. If you see a guy driving drunk, and the cops get there after he gets out of the car, they will have you place the guy under arrest, and they will take over....

If you actually attempt to arrest someone without police help, they must be willing to stay. If you force them to stay by holding them, tying them up, or pointing a gun at them, that is kidnapping/illegal inprisonment. The cops will still drag the guy away, but he could drag you into court later on all kinds of B.S. charges(happened to my neighbor)

[dwtt]

I.E. I have a thug at gunpoint that has attempted to assault my person with what I believe to be deadly force (knife, gun, other weapon), broken into my house, etc.
If a thug is in my house about to attack me with what I believe to be deadly force, I will shoot my 9mm throwaway pistol that I bought for $130 and then call the cops after he is down and no longer a threat to me. I will not attempt a citizen's arrest since that happens only in the movies.

[JAFGO]

First thing I thought of was an episode of the old Andy Griffith Show where Gomer is chasing Barney yelling "citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest!"

I guess that's how it's done. It was on TV so it must be true.

[CaliTheKid]

If he is in your house with a weapon, I would recommend that you empty the magazine into his chest, and ask questions later. It is completely legal, and a much more safe position for a civilian with no law enforcement training. Trying to take custody of the suspect could get you or your family killed. It would be good for you to yell drop the weapon right before you fire, just so you can say you gave the guy a chance. If someone breaks into your house with a weapon, you should assume that they want to kill you or your family. I have talked to many cops about this and they all agree with the above statement. A detective that I knew in the military told me the following: “If they don’t have a weapon that you can see, yell drop the knife, and then take a knife from your kitchen and place it in his hand once he is down. During most break-ins the person goes straight to the kitchen to get a weapon, and the cops will never question it.” Harsh I know, but I was living in Texas at the time and they don’t mess around when it comes to that sort of thing.

Well, first we are not in Texas and second during most break ins the bugler does not go to the kitchen and get a weapon to stalk the house. The majority of break-ins are short and to the point and smash and grab in nature. They go for the bedroom or office looking for guns, jewelry, cash and laptop computers. They want in and out quickly. The last thing most thieves want is to run into a resident. If a confrontation does happen, your first and only thought in a confrontation should be assessing the threat and either retreating to a safe part of your house, bunkering down and calling 911 if possible or if faced with immediate deadly threat meeting it and overwhelming it with deadly force. In a split second you had best think fast and make the right decision. We do not live in a state with a Make My Day law such as Texas and the responsibility is on you to shoot or not to shoot. Being in your house is not enough to justify deadly force. The consequences are life altering if you make the wrong decision. Shoot a thirteen year old who broke into your house armed with a cell phone and I promise you will not be happy.

[Tyler]

Well, first we are not in Texas and second during most break ins the bugler does not go to the kitchen and get a weapon to stalk the house. The majority of break-ins are short and to the point and smash and grab in nature. They go for the bedroom or office looking for guns, jewelry, cash and laptop computers. They want in and out quickly. The last thing most thieves want is to run into a resident. If a confrontation does happen, your first and only thought in a confrontation should be assessing the threat and either retreating to a safe part of your house, bunkering down and calling 911 if possible or if faced with immediate deadly threat meeting it and overwhelming it with deadly force. In a split second you had best think fast and make the right decision. We do not live in a state with a Make My Day law such as Texas and the responsibility is on you to shoot or not to shoot. Being in your house is not enough to justify deadly force. The consequences are life altering if you make the wrong decision. Shoot a thirteen year old who broke into your house armed with a cell phone and I promise you will not be happy.

I find it hard to believe that someone who is willing to commit a hot break-in would not either have or find a weapon when entering a house. Breaking into a house with people home is much different than one where no one is home. These short and to the point break-ins that you are referring to only happen when the house or residence is empty. Someone that enters an occupied home does not plan on only stealing your tv. They might be thinking about rap or murder, to run and call 911 does not seem like a good idea. It would be far better for the criminal to kill you as a way of hiding his identity. It is legal to shoot someone who has unlawfully entered your home in California. As long as you believe that they have intent to hurt someone in the residence. Texas does give more rights to protect property than in California, but I see that as some thing to look up to and not talk badly about. They simply have more rights than us. If a 13 year old kid broke into my home with a weapon or intent to harm. I would feel just the same about shooting him as any adult doing the same. Protection of ones family should always be number one, not the protection of criminals, no matter what their age may be.

[Inoxmark]

The way I look at it, you can tell him to hold still, that you are making citizen's arrest, etc., but if he says FU and your arrests, turns his back on you and starts walking away, there's not a damn thing you can legally do.

[RollingCode3]

Off topic- I think it is called Private person arrest not citizen arrest. You dont have to be a US citizen to make an arrest. Second... I wouldn't recommend anyone to make a private person arrest, too much liabilities... Just my two cents

[CaliTheKid]

I find it hard to believe that someone who is willing to commit a hot break-in would not either have or find a weapon when entering a house. Breaking into a house with people home is much different than one where no one is home. These short and to the point break-ins that you are referring to only happen when the house or residence is empty. Someone that enters an occupied home does not plan on only stealing your tv. They might be thinking about rap or murder, to run and call 911 does not seem like a good idea. It would be far better for the criminal to kill you as a way of hiding his identity. It is legal to shoot someone who has unlawfully entered your home in California. As long as you believe that they have intent to hurt someone in the residence. Texas does give more rights to protect property than in California, but I see that as some thing to look up to and not talk badly about. They simply have more rights than us. If a 13 year old kid broke into my home with a weapon or intent to harm. I would feel just the same about shooting him as any adult doing the same. Protection of ones family should always be number one, not the protection of criminals, no matter what their age may be.

Do what ya need to do and live with the consequences. --Cali out.

[dadoody]

I know this is probably an oddball question to ask, but what is the proper procedure for enacting a Citizen's Arrest? I.E. I have a thug at gunpoint that has attempted to assault my person with what I believe to be deadly force (knife, gun, other weapon), broken into my house, etc. How do I go about making the Citizen's arrest in a lawful manner in CA?

To directly answer your question, if you see an illegal action being performed, you can walk up to the person and state that you are placing them under citizen's arrest. You then have the right to detain them (ie. Handcuff and hold in an area). After that, you call the local police/sheriffs and state that you have arrested a person for (name the violation). They will then send out an officer who will take possession of the offender, and you will be listed as the arresting person and fill out paper work.


However: I do NOT recommend performing a citizen's arrest for the following reasons:

1.) You can get hurt if the suspect is violent and you will not have the backing that a law enforcement officer has.

2.) You can be LEGALLY liable for a false arrest and detainment if you don't know your laws inside-out or misspeak to a lawyer. And you will not have the legal and financial backing/resources of a law enforcement officer.

#2 is KEY.

[Clodbuster]

The use of any deadly force is justified only if your life is in danger (i.e. the guy is facing you with a weapon). Regardless of how great a shot you are, it will take more than a couple of rounds to kill someone. If you shoot and it ends up entering the guy's side or worst, his back, you'll have a lot of explaining to do as for what you thought "his intent" was, and what CSI thought "his intent" was. Hopefully it's not at your own trial.

I also see a lot of people practice the "two in the chest, 1 in the head" maneuver at the ranges as practical "self-defense". DOJ considers this an execution regardless of the situation.

Clod

I find it hard to believe that someone who is willing to commit a hot break-in would not either have or find a weapon when entering a house. Breaking into a house with people home is much different than one where no one is home. These short and to the point break-ins that you are referring to only happen when the house or residence is empty. Someone that enters an occupied home does not plan on only stealing your tv. They might be thinking about rap or murder, to run and call 911 does not seem like a good idea. It would be far better for the criminal to kill you as a way of hiding his identity. It is legal to shoot someone who has unlawfully entered your home in California. As long as you believe that they have intent to hurt someone in the residence. Texas does give more rights to protect property than in California, but I see that as some thing to look up to and not talk badly about. They simply have more rights than us. If a 13 year old kid broke into my home with a weapon or intent to harm. I would feel just the same about shooting him as any adult doing the same. Protection of ones family should always be number one, not the protection of criminals, no matter what their age may be.

[Tyler]

Using a shot configuration like the double tap would be pretty bad news. I could see that raising a lot of questions once the police arrived. Most people involved in a self defense shooting shoot a lot more rounds out of their weapon then they realize. Your adrenaline gets pumping and you would have to be a pretty hard individual not to panic in that situation. Most police officers that get into shoot outs normally have no idea how many times they fired there weapon, or their shot estimate is far lower than it really was.

[delloro]

I find it hard to believe that someone who is willing to commit a hot break-in would not either have or find a weapon when entering a house. Breaking into a house with people home is much different than one where no one is home. These short and to the point break-ins that you are referring to only happen when the house or residence is empty. Someone that enters an occupied home does not plan on only stealing your tv. They might be thinking about rap or murder, to run and call 911 does not seem like a good idea. It would be far better for the criminal to kill you as a way of hiding his identity. It is legal to shoot someone who has unlawfully entered your home in California. As long as you believe that they have intent to hurt someone in the residence. Texas does give more rights to protect property than in California, but I see that as some thing to look up to and not talk badly about. They simply have more rights than us. If a 13 year old kid broke into my home with a weapon or intent to harm. I would feel just the same about shooting him as any adult doing the same. Protection of ones family should always be number one, not the protection of criminals, no matter what their age may be.

California law provides that a homeowner who is surprised by an intruder may assume the intruder is a threat to life and/or safety and you may shoot. BUT is it a rebuttable presumption.

"[Penal Code section] 198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury."

[delloro]

as to citizen's arrest, here is a quick primer:

[Penal Code section] 834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
officer or by a private person.

834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by
submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be
subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and
detention.

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons
as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

841. The person making the arrest must inform the person to be
arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest,
and the authority to make it, except when the person making the
arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested
is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an
offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after
its commission, or after an escape.
The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is
arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being
arrested.

844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a
felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or
window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in
which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be,
after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which
admittance is desired.

845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of
making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if
detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating
himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the
purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully
entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.

846. Any person making an arrest may take from the person arrested
all offensive weapons which he may have about his person, and must
deliver them to the magistrate before whom he is taken.

847. (a) A private person who has arrested another for the
commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take
the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a
peace officer.
(b) There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause
of action shall arise against, any peace officer or federal criminal
investigator or law enforcement officer described in subdivision (a)
or (d) of Section 830.8, acting within the scope of his or her
authority, for false arrest or false imprisonment arising out of any
arrest under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The arrest was lawful, or the peace officer, at the time of
the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe the arrest was lawful.
(2) The arrest was made pursuant to a charge made, upon reasonable
cause, of the commission of a felony by the person to be arrested.
(3) The arrest was made pursuant to the requirements of Section
142, 837, 838, or 839.

849. (a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace
officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise
released, shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the
nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the
offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the
arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.
(b) Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of taking
such person before a magistrate, any person arrested without a
warrant whenever:
(1) He or she is satisfied that there are insufficient grounds for
making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested was arrested for intoxication only, and no
further proceedings are desirable.
(3) The person was arrested only for being under the influence of
a controlled substance or drug and such person is delivered to a
facility or hospital for treatment and no further proceedings are
desirable.
(c) Any record of arrest of a person released pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (b) shall include a record of
release. Thereafter, such arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but
a detention only.

[CaliTheKid]

Off topic- I think it is called Private person arrest not citizen arrest. You dont have to be a US citizen to make an arrest. Second... I wouldn't recommend anyone to make a private person arrest, too much liabilities... Just my two cents

I agree 100%. The main thing to consider when making a citizen's arrest (private person's arrest) is liability. When a LEO makes an arrest, fires his gun etc he is covered/protected by the department against lawsuits as he is an agent of that department. When a private citizen makes an arrest, you are liable for any damages/injury that the person you have detained may have incurred thus they can sue you. Most bouncers for example work for bonded companies that carry a 1 million dollar insurance policy to protect the bouncer/club/company from liability. I'd be hard pressed to advise a friend to make a non LEO arrest as it opens a serious can of worms.

And as far as shooting someone, I'll share something they tell LE cadets in the academy which is very true: "Think before you shoot-- every bullet in your gun has a lawyer and a possible jail sentence attached to it". Personally I think everyone should take a good defensive handgun course in the state they currently reside in if they intend on using it for protection. It's well worth the expence and time not to mention you get the chance to meet other like minded individuals.

[Tyler]

Good stuff delloro.

[saki302]

As far as a shooting goes, I doubt they'd consider 2 int he chest and 1 in the head an execution. All you have to do is say yhe kept coming, and you kept shooting to stop him. You were terrified, after all.

Would you shoot ONCE and just hope he drops? I hope you carry a .500S&W with 200gr. ashtray loads.

Shooting multiple times also rules out a civil shoot based on an accidental shooting. I've read about a lot of lawsuits based on this- that the gun went off by 'accident' and the shotoer needs to prove otherwise. It's unliekly the gun went off by accident 3 times :D

With a pistol, you're not even guaranteed a stop with 3-4 shots. Any handgun is a woefully underpowered defensive weapon made as a compromise for carryability compared to virtually any long arm (save rimfires). If you want an instant stop, a rifle or shotgun is in order. If they ruled 3-4 shots is an execution, can you imagine the lawsuits against the LAPD? 3-4 shots is a conservative PD shooting!!!!

-Dave

[Tyler]

Yeah, i would not go for a pistol if an armed person were in my home. I would grab my mossberg 590 filled with buckshot and slugs. If a guy can keep coming after buckshot and slugs there is nothing more i can do to stop him.

[Clodbuster]

At that close of range, if someone was charging me, I would probably empty my mag at his head...it's my life at stake. But , as a tactical firearms instructor once told me, there is a fine line between applying sufficient force to defend yourself, and applying excessive force. No one would say a thing if you pumped 15 rounds into the chest of a charging aggressor until he drops. When you take the head shot, you are not trying to use "sufficient" force stop the aggressor from doing you harm, your intent is to kill. Most likely, I may end up serving jail time, but at least I'll be alive. Just need a good lawyer.

Police can easily end gunfights by focusing on head shots only. They are certainly trained for that. But shooting perps in the head is not a departmental policy.

BTW, studies have been made that shows it statistically takes 11~13 rounds of 9mm caliber or smaller to stop an assailant. 8~11 rounds for > 9mm.
In the heat of a gunfight with adrenaline flowing, anything goes, but you need to always keep "self defense" in prospective. There was an incident where an over zealous property owner started chasing a burglar and gunned him down...I believe he's in jail serving time :eek:


Clod


As far as a shooting goes, I doubt they'd consider 2 int he chest and 1 in the head an execution. All you have to do is say yhe kept coming, and you kept shooting to stop him. You were terrified, after all.

Would you shoot ONCE and just hope he drops? I hope you carry a .500S&W with 200gr. ashtray loads.

Shooting multiple times also rules out a civil shoot based on an accidental shooting. I've read about a lot of lawsuits based on this- that the gun went off by 'accident' and the shotoer needs to prove otherwise. It's unliekly the gun went off by accident 3 times :D

With a pistol, you're not even guaranteed a stop with 3-4 shots. Any handgun is a woefully underpowered defensive weapon made as a compromise for carryability compared to virtually any long arm (save rimfires). If you want an instant stop, a rifle or shotgun is in order. If they ruled 3-4 shots is an execution, can you imagine the lawsuits against the LAPD? 3-4 shots is a conservative PD shooting!!!!

-Dave

[shopkeep]

I absolutely agree that handguns certainly emphasize portability over stopping power. Also, one has to realize that very few encounters with would-be robbers end in death. Most often, the perp is never even shot but is simply frightened off by either the sight of a weapon or a few shots fired.