Question for leo

[spitfirejes]

If backstory is necessary I will provide a vague one. Not going to go into to much detail on an open forum.


Is it legal for LEO to refuse a citizens arrest? And refuse to file charges?



Sent from a grassy knoll at 2,800 ft/s

[Shadowdrop]

Yes. It used to not be, but now it is. Officers don't decide if charges are filed, that's the DA's job.

[TRICKSTER]

See this starting on page 4 Arrest Procedure.

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

[Petro6golf]

Yeah; at least for us if I believe your citizens arrest request is silly I can refuse it. If its absurd and you really press the issue ill write the guy a ticket but usually if its absurd the DA will see that and not file on anything.

[tom2]

X2 !!!

Yeah; at least for us if I believe your citizens arrest request is silly I can refuse it. If its absurd and you really press the issue ill write the guy a ticket but usually if its absurd the DA will see that and not file on anything.

[DEPUTYBILL]

The policy of my department was yes you had to accept an arrest. Then the deputy could,book, cite and release, or submit a report to the DA for a complaint.

[CBR_rider]

Yes, though LEO's don't "file charges."

[1CavScout]

After the law changed, we would just fill out an 849(b)(1) slip and release the person.

[John M]

Accepting the citizens arrest and actually citing or arresting are not the same. Yes, by law I have to accept your arrest, but if through investigation I learn there is no factual evidence to support the arrest, I can 849b (release from custody) the other party and advise you that although I accept your arrest there is no probable cause to support the charge.

page 10.. http://le.alcoda.org/publications/fi...ZENSARREST.pdf

[RickD427]

Several years ago Penal Code section 142 did require an officer to accept custody of a private persons arrest.

There was an LAPD case where officers did accept such custody, and where there was not a proper basis for the charge. The suspect (or victim depending on your POV) sued the officers for false arrest/false imprisonment. Their defense was that PC 142 mandated their actions. The court basically held that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures trumped PC 142. The legislature subsequently removed the mandate from PC 142, allowing officers the option.

Even before the law changed, there was an easy option available to officers who did not wish to accept a bogus arrest. There was a case originating out of San Jose PD (People v Pringle). Although the case was kinda bizarre in its facts, the court held that once an officer accepted custody of an arrestee, the officer possessed the authority to release the arrestee under Penal Code section 849. I once responded to a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant alleged that he had been battered by the landlord. The tenant had his legal aide lawyer at the scene. There were about ten witnesses, all of whom were clear that no battery had occurred. The tenant and his lawyer demanded that I accept custody of the landlord and transport him to jail. I "accepted" custody, and then immediately released him, on the spot, him under the holding of Pringle. About an hour later I was invited to appear on my watch commander's carpet to explain. The W/C started off with "I've seen a human being wound up so tight (referring to the lawyer), please explain how you did it." I walked him through the Pringle case and we both enjoyed a very good laugh. The whole point is that it would have been a travesty to take the landlord to jail when the unanimity of witness statements showed that no crime occurred.

[spitfirejes]

Yes. It used to not be, but now it is. Officers don't decide if charges are filed, that's the DA's job.

Yes, though LEO's don't "file charges."

File charges was the wrong choice of words.

Sent from a grassy knoll at 2,800 ft/s