Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does your country have Citizen's Arrest?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does your country have Citizen's Arrest?

    In most states in the US, a citizen can arrest a person for a felony commited in his/her presence, or (in some states), if they have reasonable cause to belive a crime has been comitted, and this person commited it.
    Can they do that in your countries?
    In particular, Canada?

    As a Federal Officer, I could arrest for state crimes as a "citizens arrest under color of law", meaning I could display my badge, use cuffs, etc., yet it was still a citizens arrest.
    "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
    John Stuart Mill

  • #2
    In England and Wales, we no longer have felonies. We have instead the "arrestable offence" (murder, offences carrying 5 years plus and certain specified offences which carry less than 5, such as going equipped to steal).

    Any person may arrest without warrant anyone he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is committing or has committed such an offence. Officers can also arrest anyone who we have reasonable grounds to suspect are about to commit such an offence.
    I'm a little bit waayy, a little bit wooah, a little bit woosh, I'm a geezer.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sleuth
      In most states in the US, a citizen can arrest a person for a felony commited in his/her presence, or (in some states), if they have reasonable cause to belive a crime has been comitted, and this person commited it.
      Can they do that in your countries?
      In Australia, more or less as you have stated above. However instead of Felony or Arrestable Offence, we use the term Indictable or Serious Indictable Offence.

      Comment


      • #4
        In Austria (you know, no koala, no kangaroo) a citizen can "hold" the suspect until police is present. That means if you see someone committing a crime, you can grab him by his arms or whatever, and call for police. Only police is authorized to arrest suspects.

        Comment


        • #5
          Australia - Austria

          Originally posted by leonha2
          In Austria (you know, no koala, no kangaroo).......
          Ya shouldn't have said anything, now you are really going to confuse them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Now, Now, I know the difference. I've been to Austrailia, and next door to Austria, in Germany.
            "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
            John Stuart Mill

            Comment


            • #7
              In Canada, a citizens has an authority to arrest another person if that person commits an indictable offence or is "at large" from LE. You must deliever that person to a peace officer.

              494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

              (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

              (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

              (i) has committed a criminal offence, and

              (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

              Arrest by owner, etc., of property


              (2) Any one who is

              (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

              (b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

              may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

              Delivery to peace officer


              (3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

              R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

              Comment


              • #8
                Section 352, Sub-section1, New South Wales Crimes Act 40/1900:

                "Any Constable OR OTHER PERSON, may without warrant apprehend;
                any person, in the act of commiting an offence, under any Act, punishable whether on indictment or by summary conviction, and take him, and any property found upon him, before a justice, to be dealt with according to law."


                Not bad, considering it's been 17 years since I had to learn that off by heart.
                Pain....nature's way of letting us know we're still alive!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  NSW Cop, "summary conviction" ? No trial? What does that mean? In the US, even those charged with traffic offenses can request a trial.
                  "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                  John Stuart Mill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sleuth
                    NSW Cop, "summary conviction" ? No trial? What does that mean? In the US, even those charged with traffic offenses can request a trial.
                    I may be wrong but in England & Wales summary trials are heard by a magistrate(s) without a jury which can result in a summary conviction. Generally the maximum sentence that can be imposed following a summary trial is 6 months imprisonment.


                    Lobster.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sleuth
                      NSW Cop, "summary conviction" ? No trial? What does that mean? In the US, even those charged with traffic offenses can request a trial.

                      Sleuth: Sgt lobster is correct. Summary conviction refers to a court appearance in front of a magistrate at a lower court. Magistrates sit with-out a jury and determine not only guilt ot innocence but punishment. In NSW a magistrate may only impose a sentence of 2 years and/or a maximum fine of $10,000.00. Magistrates may also hear civil cases not exceeding a certain monetary limit (but I don't know what that is, sorry).

                      Basically we have in NSW we have two main court systems. The Local Court, where magistrates sit and hear criminal matters without a jury. And the District Court, in which Judges sit usually with juries (although a Accused may waive a jury trial in some instances).

                      Magistrates as I have said, have a limit on their options as far as punishment goes, however, they can also determine if and when a case comes before the District Court.

                      The third (and highest) tier of jurisprudence in the State is the Supreme Court, usually reserved for murders and serious appeals, etc.

                      In the case of some-one charged with a Traffic offence requesting a trial, holy smokes...that would really ty up the system.

                      Here is the scenario in NSW. I pull up Sleuth and give him a traffic ticket for, say not wearing a seat belt. Fine of about $300.00. Sleuth says, "bugger this, I'm fighting this at court." He has the option of paying the fine by sending a cheque, etc to an address on the ticket. On the same ticket is a Court Election, which he fills out and sends in, being a bloody-minded sort of bloke that he is.

                      The issuing officer is then notified that Sleuth is contesting the ticket and both parties are notified of a court date.

                      At the first appearance, Sleuth has a chance to either plead guilty with mitigation (as is usually the caser in these incidences) in which case the magistrate may decrease, increase or defer the fine.
                      If Sleuth is not happy with this, or is being bloody-minded he pleads not guilty.
                      Another court date is set, the issuing police officer must prepare and present a full brief of evidence. This brief must be served on the Accused (sleuth) at least 14 days prior to the hearing date.

                      On the hearing date, all witnesses are presented, all evidence is presented and the magistrate may come to a decision.

                      If found guilty, the magistrate may decrease, increase of defer the original fine, though usually, by this stage, the fine is doubled + court costs.

                      If sleuth, is still not happy, he can appeal the decision, which is the only time the matter goes up to the District Court. A Judge, sitting alone with either uphold or dismiss the appeal.

                      If the appeal is dismissed, the Judge will return the matter to the Local Court where the original magistrate will either enforce his original decision, or impose another.

                      And that is an exceptional case, maybe one in a thousand. I could not imagine it being the norm as in America??
                      Pain....nature's way of letting us know we're still alive!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by leonha2 View Post
                        In Austria (you know, no koala, no kangaroo) a citizen can "hold" the suspect until police is present. That means if you see someone committing a crime, you can grab him by his arms or whatever, and call for police. Only police is authorized to arrest suspects.
                        Same in Germany. For officers being out of their jurisdiction it still would be an arrest by police since our criminal laws are not being limited to one state but to Germany in general. The same with traffic laws. The only laws that differ from state to state are the ones concerned with the rights of their police forces. So a control baton used for general police work in Schleswig-Holstein is prohibited by law in North-Rhine-Westphalia for regular patrol duties but allowed for special forces.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OK, it sounds like 'summery conviction' is what we call a misdemeanor. I can pay the ticket, or appear before a magistrate and plead 'guilty with mitigating circumstances', or request a trail. And, if I lose at trial, I can expect to pay more than the initial ticket.
                          BTW, our Constitution requires a trial by jury in any civil case exceeding $25. Of course, in 1789, $25 was a lot of money.

                          Edited to add: In Arizona, if a citizen places someone under citizens arrest, the police MUST take custody of the person (although they then can follow their procedures, such as issue a citation and release on scene).
                          Last edited by Sleuth; 10-04-2007, 01:01 PM.
                          "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                          John Stuart Mill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sleuth View Post
                            In most states in the US, a citizen can arrest a person for a felony commited in his/her presence, or (in some states), if they have reasonable cause to belive a crime has been comitted, and this person commited it.
                            Can they do that in your countries?
                            In particular, Canada?

                            As a Federal Officer, I could arrest for state crimes as a "citizens arrest under color of law", meaning I could display my badge, use cuffs, etc., yet it was still a citizens arrest.

                            Yes we have her ein the Netherlands..
                            (Als Begium and Germany this not a problem.)

                            Bad translation but here are the gaming rules:
                            What can a citizen at an adjournment red-handed? Can a citizen who is witness of an indictable offence the verdachte apprehends? Under Article 53 of the statute book of sentence progress red-handed an everyone is competent apprehend verdachte at discovery. The aresed must be transferred, however, ` immediately to the police force. There are however still what requirements and conditions for a citizen judgment. Thus the aresed ` must be transferred immediately to the police force. To occur that the aresed takes the legs, the sticker can exercise coercion, for example by keeping him against the ground. It used violence cannot further go then necessary is reach that the suspect does not go there run away. It is shout with joy that citizens use daily of this competence. Both policemen and officieren of justice are in practice coulant compared with citizens whom the initiative has taken to apprehend someone. There is however a clear border where the violence application must stop. As soon as the aresed/suspect has delivered itself or defenceless is, then the aim has been reached and is no more violence necessary. That applies to an adjournment by the police force but also to an adjournment by citizens. When violence continues after someone has been apprehended, it beats for in irrationally violence. An adjournment by a citizen is very well, but what cannot that the aangehoudene vervolgens a couple applauds considerable after gets. Or that nou is because someone steam must blow off or because he has the idea that he himself the verdachte must punish, such violence is not admissible

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              cocacola, the same rules apply here, even for the police. We can only use the minimum force needed to detain the person.

                              Of course, the person making the citizen's arrest becomes liable for errors and injuries to the suspect.
                              "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                              John Stuart Mill

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4949 users online. 301 members and 4648 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X