Legal aspects of "attacking" Prep's car to help affect Citizen's Arrest???

[Big Chudungus]

Suppose an employee or security guard sees someone cutting cat converters off vehicles parked on company property.

Rather than get physical with perp, what if employee slashes prep's get away car tires? What if employee yanks out tire valve stem(s) with pliers, doing less permanent damage? Punching hole in radiator with rebar? Blowing out side windows and cracking windshield?

How about the old "banana in the tail pipe" trick???

Then employee of course calls 911 about perp making get away in crippled car that can't freeway speed.

Assume their is video of perp coming onto company property with cat cutting tools and getting under car, and other strong evidence perp is involved in late night exhaust work, etc.

What if perp's car was parked on public street VS on company property?

What if perp leaves scene with flatten tires before employee is able to say the magic words for a Citzien's Arrest then perp crashes into other cars and flatten tires are cited as "contributing factor"?

I'm thinking on one hand going after perp's car VS perp's Corpus Habeas is non-standard and thus not recommended, but on the other hand if it "all blows up in employee's face" illegal actions involving a (crappy low value sub-$800 KKB) car would be much less of a problem.

Thots? Legal VS how it will be treated by real cops?

[hermosabeach]

Don't GET SHOT and killed for property....

and a question

you stab a tire and they speed off

Thief then wrecks and T bones a fancy Braubus mercedes...

What insurance do you have to cover the $500,000 car they hit and the injuries to those people?

Sounds dumb... but the crash occurred as you cut a valve stem... or punctured a tire... that is why they crashed....


What policy of yours covers you for your possibly criminal act????


If a spike strip or a pursuit can cause the PD to be sued... The PD chase made the perp go faster or the PIT made the person lose control... the PD will pay out on property damage....

[Big Chudungus]

Don't GET SHOT and killed for property....

That brings up another interesting question. I know there are reasons cops don't shoot out tires or radiators in LA high (or low lol) speed chases, but what would happen is say a bank guard shoots up bank robber's get away car, say once the robber's enter it but before it really gets moving. Suppose the robbers were armed and had made death threats, and the guard was shooting from cover. Yeah, I know its no doubt not what Bank Policy says but would the bank guard be in big big trouble, or just little trouble, or no trouble?

[Big Chudungus]

Don't GET SHOT and killed for property....




If a spike strip or a pursuit can cause the PD to be sued... The PD chase made the perp go faster or the PIT made the person lose control... the PD will pay out on property damage....

Interesting, I've heard totally innocent people who happen to get hit by cop car, sometime just regular "at fault" fender bender, not cop in chase or anything, have a very hard time getting a cent from PD.

[Big Chudungus]

[QUOTE=hermosabeach;26667177]Don't GET SHOT and killed for property....

Lost Prevention (retail) is expected (or used to up until couple years ago) to go "hands on" to detain shoplifters if required (which is main reason I'd never do that sort of work).

I'm thinking "hands on get away car" would be much less liability and also much less chance of getting cooties off some dirtbag perp, and you might be able to get within striking distance of getaway car without getting in danger close distance of prep in certain situations. If you are at passenger or rear of his car at least you could maybe use his own car as your cover.

[P5Ret]

So tell me where is the pass on 10852 VC for this fictional employee committing the same crime, as the person stealing the catalytic converter off a car?

Maybe stick to being a good witness with a plate number and description of both the vehicle and the suspect, would be a better idea in all of your scenarios.

I think you'd have a difficult time finding an agency that has a policy that allows shooting at a fleeing, or moving vehicle that isn't a direct threat.

10852. No person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the contents thereof or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner.

[Big Chudungus]

So tell me where is the pass on 10852 VC for this fictional employee committing the same crime, as the person stealing the catalytic converter off a car?

Maybe stick to being a good witness with a plate number and description of both the vehicle and the suspect, would be a better idea in all of your scenarios.

I think you'd have a difficult time finding an agency that has a policy that allows shooting at a fleeing, or moving vehicle that isn't a direct threat.

10852. No person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the contents thereof or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner.

The "pass" would be in the Citizen's Arrest law that allows, paraphrasing, "any required force" to detain an unwilling arrestee. That makes doing lots of stuff that is otherwise very illegal suddenly legal, correct? There is semi-famous video of two Walmart LPs detaining some guy in their LP office over a case of motor oil and he says "this is BS" and attempts to get up and leave and one LP does a brutal clothsline take down and IIRC it was ruled fully legal not under "Shop Keeper's" but the broader Citizen's Arrest.

I'm thinking there would be several situations where trying to do a C.A. of the person might be problematic and risky, but disabling their get away car could be done without risk and would effectively detain them. Such as poachers/rustlers who would be some distance from their truck, and even more distance from any town and thus be effectively "detained" without a running truck.

I'd heard Bank Guards were cleared to open fire on armed bank robbers at anytime, but that might have been in the old days.

[RickD427]

The "pass" would be in the Citizen's Arrest law that allows, paraphrasing, "any required force" to detain an unwilling arrestee.

Methinks you're making up stuff here.

There ain't nothing in the Citizen's Private Persons Arrest Statute that says anything about "any required force."

Here's the full text of the statute (Quoted from PC 837). Please point out where you think the words "any required force" are:

"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."

[71MUSTY]

Maybe we should all get "Citizen's Private Persons Arrest Statute" Armbands, sashes and badges.

[GizmoSD]

First of all, it’s fun that you use “perp” so often. Lets us know who we’re dealing with.

Second, you’re hanging a lot on the line for a property crime that insurance covers. And in my experience, folks with these elaborate plans to save the world from crime disappear when criminals actually show up.

Don’t make a situation worse for the cops that have to un-screw the radio call. I’d laugh when the crook places you under citizens arrest, and it’s all on BWC, and you’re dead to rights admitting you vandalized property, or did some other malicious act to someone else’s stuff. You might not get hooked, but it’s gonna get documented.

Personally, I think it’s great when citizens get even with crooks…had plenty of those calls. But those days are long gone, and in the over-litigious current climate, you’re gonna get screwed.

But at any rate, please drop a few more “perps”, and if you have time, touch on the “slammer” and maybe even mention OJ Simpson.

[esy]

Dale Brown, is that you?

[Big Chudungus]

Methinks you're making up stuff here.

There ain't nothing in the Citizen's Private Persons Arrest Statute that says anything about "any required force."

Here's the full text of the statute (Quoted from PC 837). Please point out where you think the words "any required force" are:

"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."

VERY interesting and MAYBE its included with "arrest" as some sort of given???

I do remember this subject being taught in Civics classes and once by a mid-ranking guest speaker cop but that was decades ago. I do remember much more recent info from CA approved/required Guard Card classes that stressed "ONLY required force to detain" and I'm pretty sure that was general C.A. not "shop keepers".

Would be interested in getting to the bottom of this, hopefully with real case law, and hopefully qualified legal opinions. Maybe law changed in last 30+yrs???

IIRC in this high profile case it turned out the "guard" didn't even have a Guard Card, much less Exposed Firearm Permit, but the legal stuff was that he was considered legal to do a "Citizen's Arrest" because the "Apple Employee" kinda sorta veered toward him, so "guard" was able to claim some attempted attack with deadly weapon (the car), something about the guard placing traffic cones. Then the supervisor shows up and is threatening to smash the car window if the driver doesn't exit ASAP to be arrested. AFAIK no charges for anyone and the Apple dudes lawsuit went nowhere. And Santa Clara is a basically anti-guns DA not only is Apple the biggest richest company ever but their headquarters is just next door and no doubt they make big contributions to everyone. https://www.google.com/search?q=Appl...h=579&dpr=1.25

[P5Ret]

This just keeps getting better and better. The real fun part is that you can't make the distinction between detaining a person, and damaging, or disabling someone's vehicle, a vehicle that may not even belong to the person you're trying to arrest. It's not unusual for thieves to use stolen cars for their activities.

It's already been pointed out that there is no lawful justification for this in the penal code. Yes force can be used to overcome resistance to a lawful arrest, but that does not extend to what you are proposing here. Take the example of what the grounds crew at Petco Park did to the idiot spinning donuts on the field. The blocked the access tunnel with a forklift preventing him from getting out, much like closing a gate. No damage, just no where to go, sit back and wait for the cavalry to arrive.

You may not end up in handcuffs, but you very well may end up on the wrong end of a civil suit. Insurance companies aren't really keen on shelling out money to fix a car that was intentionally damaged by a known individual. They will try to recover that money.

I think you'd be well advised to listen to RickD, I don't know a lot about his background, but he does give out solid advise. I do know that the bar on his collar when he was working for the largest SO in the state was probably a lot harder to get than the stripes I had in the the little 40 man agency I worked at.

[RickD427]

VERY interesting and MAYBE its included with "arrest" as some sort of given???

I do remember this subject being taught in Civics classes and once by a mid-ranking guest speaker cop but that was decades ago. I do remember much more recent info from CA approved/required Guard Card classes that stressed "ONLY required force to detain" and I'm pretty sure that was general C.A. not "shop keepers".

Would be interested in getting to the bottom of this, hopefully with real case law, and hopefully qualified legal opinions. Maybe law changed in last 30+yrs???

IIRC in this high profile case it turned out the "guard" didn't even have a Guard Card, much less Exposed Firearm Permit, but the legal stuff was that he was considered legal to do a "Citizen's Arrest" because the "Apple Employee" kinda sorta veered toward him, so "guard" was able to claim some attempted attack with deadly weapon (the car), something about the guard placing traffic cones. Then the supervisor shows up and is threatening to smash the car window if the driver doesn't exit ASAP to be arrested. AFAIK no charges for anyone and the Apple dudes lawsuit went nowhere. And Santa Clara is a basically anti-guns DA not only is Apple the biggest richest company ever but their headquarters is just next door and no doubt they make big contributions to everyone. https://www.google.com/search?q=Appl...h=579&dpr=1.25

There haven't been any major changes in this area of law since I started working in 1976.

The videos contained in your link all refer to civil lawsuits filed as a result of a security guard drawing his weapon during an incident at a shopping center. Those videos are really irrelevant to this discussion. Civil lawsuits are quite different from criminal prosecutions. There are very significant differences in the use of force to detain a person, and the use of force to defend oneself. But most importantly of all, you seem to be confusing the lack of criminal prosecution, resulting from enforcement discretion, with a proper standing to use force.

It's also very important to keep in mind the levels of force that may be applied. Your use of "any required force" is an extremely broad standard. It would allow me to use deadly force to detain a jaywalker if lesser levels of force didn't work. I know of no place in the law where such a broad standard applies (and even if found in statute, would be limited by Tennessee v Garner). California's "Shopkeeper's Privilege" (refer to Penal Code section 490.5) that you alluded to does not permit "any required force." It only permits "reasonable amount of nondeadly force necessary" to accomplish the detention. That is a much more limited level of force.

The majority of law governing the use of force by private persons making arrests is contained in case law, rather than in the statutory law. This is also an area where the peace officer's discretion (refer to Penal Code section 4) and the prosecutor's filing discretion often come into play.

As a practical matter, I can tell you that the vast majority of cases where an untrained private person has attempted to make an arrest have resulted in that private person going to jail, usually for some form of assault, battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or robbery.

[Big Chudungus]

There haven't been any major changes in this area of law since I started working in 1976.

The videos contained in your link all refer to civil lawsuits filed as a result of a security guard drawing his weapon during an incident at a shopping center. Those videos are really irrelevant to this discussion.

It's also very important to keep in mind the levels of force that may be applied. Your use of "any required force" is an extremely broad standard. It would allow me to use deadly force to detain a jaywalker if lesser levels of force didn't work. I know of no place in the law where such a broad standard applies (and even if found in statute, would be limited by Tennessee v Garner). California's "Shopkeeper's Privilege" (refer to Penal Code section 490.5) that you alluded to does not permit "any required force." It only permits "reasonable amount of nondeadly force necessary" to accomplish the detention. That is a much more limited level of force.

The majority of law governing the use of force by private persons making arrests is contained in case law, rather than in the statutory law.

As a practical matter, I can tell you that the vast majority of cases where an untrained private person has attempted to make an arrest have result in that private person going to jail, usually for some form of assault, battery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or robbery.

My point is an "arrest" with at least threat of deadly force occurred and since no charges were filed in a very public case that tells me defacto a standard anti-gun etc CA liberal DA "signed off" on not just use of force but pulling a gun to make a C.A. on private but "public access" property.

"vast majority of cases where an untrained private person has attempted to make an arrest have result in that private person going to jail"

REALLY??? got some stats or cases? Because while it is not "my lane" I can assure you there is a whole universe of people making C.A.s as private citizens on mostly completely public property including a full spectrum of "use of force" mostly on a whole spectrum of drug/booze affected subjects and while much of it sounds borderline abusive to me I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for illegal arrest. This is around public areas near concerts, shopping malls and big biz corp "campus" areas. I've know both people in the arresting and arrestee sides of this.

Like I said, I've been offered such jobs several times by guys who do it all day everyday, and who are still doing it AFAIK. I could "drop names" and link to news stories even.