Ok, the general rule in Legal is that you cite the relevant passage in state law along with your discussion of it. Better yet, provide a link.
Example,
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/
Where one must be careful is that the statute is the beginning of the process, not the end.
For example, in Georgia, an unjustified detention without a warrant is a tort of false imprisonment, aka common law term is trespass upon a person see, Smith v. Embry, 103 GA. App. 375, 377 (1961). In Georgia code, the tort is defined as “False imprisonment is the unlawful detention of the person of another, for any length of time, whereby such person is deprived of his personal liberty.” OCGA § 51-7-20. “The only essential elements of the action being the detention and its unlawfulness, malice and the want of probable cause need not be shown.” (see Westberry v. Clanton 136 Ga 795, (1911).
In Georgia, due to Georgia statutes, commercial establishments have more protections from these torts than individuals and once again, a fair amount of the caselaw deals with citizen's arrests done by off duty police officers or officers out of jurisdiction.
For example, in Florida, common law is used which means that the courts in Florida have interpreted the reach of arrests, see McAnnis v. State, 386 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1114741/mcannis-v-state/
Ruling precedent is State v. Phoenix, 455 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1984)
"The district court of appeal reversed. Although agreeing with the trial court that the officers had no official authority to stop and arrest the defendants in St. Lucie County, the district court reasoned that the officers might have properly conducted a common-law citizen's arrest. On motion for rehearing, the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
Can an arrest be validated as a “citizen's arrest”
(1) if the arrest resulted from an intentional surveillance conducted by police officers outside their jurisdiction utilizing a police aircraft and officers on the ground and,
(2) if the police officers used a marked police car and asserted their official position in stopping the arrestees?
428 So.2d at 267. We answer the questions in the affirmative.
At common law, a private citizen could make an arrest without a warrant in certain specific circumstances:
A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. Even though there was time to obtain a warrant, a private citizen may make such an arrest and justify his failure to obtain a warrant by proving the person arrested was actually guilty of a felony.
Collins v. State, 143 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA),
cert. denied, 148 So.2d 280 (Fla.1962).
See also State v. Shipman, 370 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979),
cert. denied, 381 So.2d 769 (Fla.1980).
In interpreting the citizen's arrest in common law of Florida, one must be careful as much of the caselaw is from law enforcement officials working off duty and sometimes out of jurisdiction. In such cases, the Florida courts repeatedly have found that an officer conducting such an arrest is without the color of the law protection for actions and thus is bound by common law.
One of the more interesting cases that uses Florida law for an ordinary civilian versus civilian case is a military court martial of an airman at a Florida airbase. U.S. v. Shepherd, 33 M.J. 66, 69, (CMA 1991). The Court of Military Appeals interpreted Florida laws regarding citizen's arrest and whether the accused had the right to self defense against being detained by the citizen affecting the arrest. The court concluded that Shepherd did not have the right to self defense as the original detention of the suspect by the citizen/airman was justified. However, during the arrest, the citizen/airman was sucker punched, had his nose severely broken and required extensive corrective surgery.
In a similar warning to those planning citizen's arrest, the following passage is from Johnson v. Barnes and Noble, 437 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2006). This case involves someone suing Barnes and Noble and winning based on the Florida tort of false imprisonment after a citizen's arrest by a Barnes and Noble employee.
"In Florida, the tort of false imprisonment is defined as “the unlawful restraint of a person against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff and the deprivation of his liberty.” Johnson v. Weiner 19 So. 2d. 699, 700 (1944). In a false imprisonment action the plaintiff is required only to “establish imprisonment contrary to his will and the unlawfulness of the detention.”
Barnes& Noble argues that Johnson's detention was lawful in this case based on the right of a citizen to effectuate an arrest for breach of the peace. Section 877.03 (2); Florida Statutes defines a breach of the peace as occurring when a person commits “such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting[.]” Florida courts have narrowly interpreted the meaning of this statute, and have required a showing that a breach of the peace presents an imminent threat to the public security or morals to justify a citizen taking immediate action. Moreover, Florida law requires that in order to effectuate a citizen's arrest, the breach must “be committed in the presence of the private citizen.” Steiner v. State, 690 So. 2d 706, 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). Indeed, pursuant to Florida law, not even a police officer can effectuate a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, if the misdemeanor was not committed in his presence. Johnson was detained, however, by Barnes & Noble employees who had been told, but had not witnessed, the alleged misdemeanor. Moreover, there were no allegations that Johnson had continued this behavior or was at the time of the detention disruptive or committing other “such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them.” Under the facts presented here—showing no imminent threat and actions not committed in the presence of those detaining Johnson—we find that the district court did not err in denying the requested instruction for breach of the peace, and accordingly, Barnes & Noble is not entitled to a new trial on liability."
Barnes and Noble had to pay $117,000 dollars in damages as a result. Most citizens are unable to define what is a felony or a misdemeanor and in many states under their common law, detaining someone for a misdemeanor is subject to legal peril as only particular misdemeanors apply and usually under common law the crime must be committed in the presence of the person conducting the citizen's arrest. Other states have their laws codified, such as Georgia which can give a bit more certainty to some actions than caselaw. But, even in these states, the statute's meaning will often be determined by caselaw including some old cases so as to give effect to what the legislature intended. It is too extensive and beyond THR needs to discuss, but the preemption of common law/caselaw by a statute is a complicated matter and is idiosyncratic to a particular state's legal culture.
