Holding someone at gunpoint for Police?

[Cyborg]

Arizona Arrest Without Warrant Law

As the cops who frequent here the question is not about arrest but arrest without warrant. If you have a valid arrest warrant (or for sure in Az knowledge of an outstand warrant an the say-so of a magistrate) you can arrest anyone.

The problem is arrest WITHOUT warrant.

Here is the Az law I found at:
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/usa-arizona/criminal law/arrest/arrest.php

The procedure of arrest in the state of Arizona has been provided in Arizona Revised Statute in Title No. 13.

An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.

The arrest may be made by the following persons:

• By a Peace officer

• By Private Person


ARREST BY A PEACE OFFICER

A peace officer may arrest a person with or without a warrant. A peace officer may arrest a person without warrant if he has probable cause to believe:

A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.
A misdemeanor has been committed in his presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.
A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.

ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON

A private person may make an arrest:

When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
AUTHORIZATION OF ARREST BY TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAM

Any magistrate may, by an endorsement under his hand upon a warrant of arrest, authorize the service of the warrant by telegraph or telephone, and thereafter a telegraphic or telephonic copy of such warrant may be sent by telegraph or telephone to one or more peace officers.

The copy shall be as effectual in the hands of any officer, and he shall proceed in the same manner under it, as though he held an original warrant issued by the magistrate making the endorsement.

METHOD OF ARREST BY OFFICER WITH WARRANT

When making an arrest with a warrant the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. However the officer need not have to inform or show cause where the offender flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.

METHOD OF ARREST BY OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT

When making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the person to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

RIGHT OF OFFICER TO BREAK INTO BUILDING

An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest for a felony without a warrant, may break open a door or window of any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose.

DUTY OF OFFICER AFTER ARRESTING WITH WARRANT

When the arrest with warrant is made by any peace officer such officer shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the magistrate who issued the warrant or, if that magistrate is absent or unable to act, before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the same county.


ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

A person arrested without a warrant shall without unnecessary delay be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest occurs, and a complaint shall be made before the magistrate setting forth the facts, and the basis for his statement of the facts, showing the offense for which the person was arrested.

DUTY OF PRIVATE PERSON AFTER MAKING ARREST

A private person who has made an arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest was made, or deliver him to a peace officer, who shall without unnecessary delay take him before such magistrate.

The private person or officer so taking the person arrested before the magistrate shall make before the magistrate a complaint, which shall set forth the facts showing the offense for which the person was arrested.

However, the officer cannot make the complaint, the private person who delivered the person arrested to the officer shall accompany the officer before the magistrate and shall make to the magistrate the complaint against the person arrested.

And I don't know about Az but in Tejas criminal tresspass is considered "offense against the public peace" and thus "A
peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace". Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure Art. 14.01

In Texas anyone may arrest a person for theft committed in their presence. CCP 18.16 I used 18.16 more than once working security at strip malls. Of course I waited until the shoplifter had crossed the store's threshold before I stopped them and asked them to open their bag. That served 2 purposes. 1) it demonstrated intent and 2) it got them onto my jurisdiction since I had no authority inside the store.

I am not sure that holding someone until the arrival of Law Enforcement is illegal. From what I could see of black letter Az law it looks like force is allowed to hold someone until LE arrives. But that is black letter law and I'm sure the Duke_of_doubt and other attorneys here could tell us how much the working of that law is worth.

Cyborg

 

[mio]

if a person is in the country illegealy do they have the same rights as a citizen or legal immagrant/tourist?

i would think that would be an important question.

 

[RP88]

Guantanamo suspects have due process and Habeus Corpus, and aren't supposed to be tortured. They weren't exactly legal in anything they did. I'd imagine that - under that precedent and general train of thought - that an illegal can get a lawyer and sue in the US, especially since it is apparently being done here.

 

[Dokkalfar]

i am assuming that this stems from the AZ guy who is getting sued by the illegal aliens he stopped on his ranch? in that case, its private property and i fully support the ranch owner.

if not, i dont see why holding someone for LE would be illegal, as long as they had committed an offense that would get them arrested as stated in the code above.

 

[Macmac]

I can't really make a comment because i don't understand how illegals have any rights. Seems to me if you are caught in the act of breaking the law you should be arrested, tried and fines then deported, and that what ever happens is tuff cookies to you for breaking the law.

So this deal is just simply more than I can understand with some help, probably medical...

These days what ever should make the most common sence to any fool is exactly 180 degrees to the way reality is.

I certainly have no problem with the land owner holding many people breaking the law as i used to understand it under the point of a gun, so long as he doesn't shoot for target practice and kill them all.

I hope someone will point out to me why these people have any Rights under American law.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

If this guy is forced to pay, I'd bet in the future he'll just make sure there's no one alive to sue. And I imagine other ranchers who've shared his problems will think similarly.


hes already been forced to pay by a jury of 11 white folks and one latino

 

[psyopspec]

Wouldn't this make export restrictions unconstitutional? Didn't Col. North get into a pile of trouble, trying to extend second amendment rights to a certain group of non-US citizens?

Negative Ghostrider.

North got into a pile o' trouble for this:

U.S. funding of the Contras by appropriated funds spent by intelligence agencies had been prohibited by the Boland Amendment.

And was convicted of this:

He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was initially convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions).

More legal fiascoing followed, but it had more to do with violating things like commerce laws, public trust, and engaging in the funding of a paramilitary org which congress had expressly prohibited. Whether you think that's right or wrong is one thing (and a topic for another forum), but as I said above, the system itself ain't perfect.

Source: The almighty wikipedia.

 

[apex]

Take a look at this link...
Newpaper

Should this guy have had his permit to carry concealed revoked? He did not need to approach or apprehend this individual.

 

[expvideo]

I'm still shocked that people in this country illegally are given civil rights.

If a member of LEO is allowed to shoot a convicted prisoner fleeing under any circumstances... Then why can't we do the same for illegals? The man is more than me for just holding them there until the proper authorities arrived. If it were me I'd be digging 16 holes at my ranch.

Statements like that are not highroad. We don't advocate breaking the law here, and shooting illegal aliens for crossing your property would be breaking the law. Get some therapy.

 

[hankdatank1362]

I thought, legally, you immediately invalidate any right to bring forth any civil litigation if you were committing an illegal act at the time.

As in: You slip, fall and break your hip, running out of the 7-11 you just robbed: you don't get to sue for negligence. Maybe kind of a response to the burglar who hurt himself falling through a woman's skylight and successfully sued.

 

[rainman500_0]

Make him a Reserve Deputy then he is legal in every way.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

he was a cop once as were his brothers the one brother got canned for beating a prisoner not sure what made him leave a calling that would have legitimized his hunting license. might be interesting to find out

 

[Skykomish]

So, this kinda goes against people on here (THR) and "Other" forums saying that your private property "RIGHTS" trumps my Constitutional Rights to CCW/Opencarry, Free Speech, etc....

If an illegal(s) can Sue this guy, and this guy gets charged criminally and loses how can this be true? Apparently Constitutional Rights apply to everyone, everywhere, not just to be used against the government, or government oppression.

Let's think logically here folks!

No matter the Bill Of Rights/Constitutional Issues, statutory laws have been applied here, by way of protecting the Unenumerated/Unalienable Rights. Common law applies here as well......

Skykomish

 

[easyrider604]

"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen."

Firstly, I am against and do not subscribe to vigilanteism because I truly believe in the rule of law.


Nothwithstanding his big mouth, Barnett deserves the support of people who believe in doing the right thing and standing up for what they believe in.

Barnett may or may not be financially capable of defending himself, but I believe he is a good citizen and person and I am willing to contribute to a fund that will assist him. I am pledging $50.00 to start his legal assistance fund. I'd volunteer to personally help manage this fund but I do not live in the U.S., but can send the money anyways to somebody who is willing to manage this fund.

 

[pugmug]

Send me the 50 or better yet send it to the U.S. Government.They take such good care of money,lol.

 

[Macmac]

I still don't understand... How can an illegal be breaking the law and have any Rights at the same time?

He started out with no rights and crossed illegaly over the border and suddenly has rights? Still in the act of breaking the law?

That's almost like I have the rights to go rob banks because it is with in my right of the Pursuit of Happiness. If i robbed a bank and had lots of money for it i sure would be happy....

I figure the guy owned the land, it was trashed, his property was trashed and his cattle were killed just like he says. All of this was illegal and all of was done by illegals entering illegally over the border.

I'ld say they own him every dime for all the property they wrecked and the costs of labor plus his time, and not the other way around.

I just can't understand.

 

[X-Rap]

Macmac things on the border are a lot different than they are up north. If we as a country were wise we would look there and do some rapid adjustments to how we deal with those problems before they permeate through our whole country.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm tired of deleting off topic posts. you all can go somewhere else and discuss immigration. It's off topic here.