TexasCHLforum.com

The issue I was addressing revolved around a comment made by soccerdad. He had brought up holding a person you catch breaking into your home. Would any of you more legal minded folks like to address how this would apply?

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:10 am Some info on Texas law, pertinent to citizens and security officers:

If you detain a suspect in an incident, it may be considered that you have placed him under citizen’s arrest.

This can only be done if it’s quickly followed up by a call to the police with the intention to remand this person into police custody.

Arrest

An arrest is defined by article 15.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and states that: A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines arrest as: “To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority.”

In simple terms an arrest is a form of lawful control by one person over the actions of another.

An arrest, in Texas law, is “The apprehension or detention of another in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime.“
An arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private citizen.
To deprive someone of their liberty or freedom of movement may be viewed as an arrest.

For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.

It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.
For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.
It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.

IF YOU, BY COMMUNICATION OR OTHER MEANS, MAKE A PERSON FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO GO, THEN YOU HAVE ARRESTED THEM.

CCP Chapter 14

CCP (14.01a) allows any person to make an arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances.

Including:

(1)When a felony is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(2)When an immediate breach of the peace is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(3)Preventing consequences of theft.

Detainment – Arrest

Security officers are not obligated or required to make an arrest!

Officer’s Responsibility

You may be right at the scene when a violation occurs, but you do not have to make an arrest.

Thanks for this.

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-arberys-me ... 37772.html

Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trial of men accused of murdering him.

Medical privacy is too important even in death.

Apparently in addition to being a jogger with an interest in residential remodeling, he was crazy.

Sounds like a set up for a guilty verdict.

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

I agree. The way I see it is they did not actually witness Aubrey committing a crime. They knew nothing of his history. They just assumed the random black jogger must have done something illegal.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:52 pm

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

I agree. The way I see it is they did not actually witness Aubrey committing a crime. They knew nothing of his history. They just assumed the random black jogger must have done something illegal.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arbery-files/
Georgia law is different from Texas law. It is not necessary that anyone "actually witness Aubrey committing a crime." GA 17-4-60 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://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/ga ... or-arrest/

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:10 am Some info on Texas law, pertinent to citizens and security officers:

If you detain a suspect in an incident, it may be considered that you have placed him under citizen’s arrest.

This can only be done if it’s quickly followed up by a call to the police with the intention to remand this person into police custody.

Arrest

An arrest is defined by article 15.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and states that: A person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines arrest as: “To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority.”

In simple terms an arrest is a form of lawful control by one person over the actions of another.

An arrest, in Texas law, is “The apprehension or detention of another in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime.“
An arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private citizen.
To deprive someone of their liberty or freedom of movement may be viewed as an arrest.

For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.

It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.
For an arrest to be lawful, acceptable and without immediate liability, it must result in the legal apprehension or detention of a person.
It must be done with the intention of presenting the person to a magistrate to answer for an illegal crime.

IF YOU, BY COMMUNICATION OR OTHER MEANS, MAKE A PERSON FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO GO, THEN YOU HAVE ARRESTED THEM.

CCP Chapter 14

CCP (14.01a) allows any person to make an arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances.

Including:

(1)When a felony is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(2)When an immediate breach of the peace is committed within the view of the person making the arrest.

(3)Preventing consequences of theft.

Detainment – Arrest

Security officers are not obligated or required to make an arrest!

Officer’s Responsibility

You may be right at the scene when a violation occurs, but you do not have to make an arrest.

I just wanted to clarify a few points in this. I am unaware of any section of law that specifies what an arrest is in Texas. The definition given is not valid because there is a clear difference between an arrest and a detention, though the line is very blurry when reading SCOTUS decisions. An arrest is clearly stopping a person from leaving but sometimes that is just an investigatory detention and not an arrest. There may be Texas court cases that have established a better definition than the one given by Paladin but I have not kept up with it very much. I know that SCOTUS has said even handcuffing a person or pulling a gun on them does not necessarily make it an arrest instead of a detention. The only really clear line I remember from my training is that it is an arrest if you transport them away from the scene of the detention. This is really a confusing area of the law and I am not sure of how it would differ from a police officer for any non-sworn citizen.

I am unaware of any law requiring you to immediately notify a police officer if you make a citizen's arrest of a suspect. But the question does come up of what you will do with them if you don't call a cop. As a matter of fact, Article 14.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says the person making the arrest or the person having custody of the arrested subject must take them to a magistrate within 48 hours. The part about the person having custody allows you to turn the subject over to a police officer or allows the police officer to turn the subject over to jail staff and allow them to get him magistrated. But under the law, you could make the arrest and take them to a magistrate yourself if you wanted. Do you know how to do that? Realistically you are going to call a police officer, but if the officer declines to charge or take custody, you do have options.

I also wanted to clarify your authority for arrest. It is actually in three articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 14.01(a) says any peace officer OR OTHER PERSON (my emphasis) may arrest without a warrant for any felony or offense against the public peace committed within their presence or view. Article 15.01 says that any officer or any person specifically named in the warrant can make the arrest. I have never heard of an arrest warrant naming someone other than a police officer but it could happen. I could see a parole or probation officer being named to arrest one of their subjects. The only real trick to 14.01(a) is knowing which crimes are covered. If you are not aware of what is an offense against the public peace, you could make a serious mistake. Mistakes when making an arrest can make you a felon.

The third arrest authority is found in Article 18.16. This is the arrest to prevent the consequences of theft. There is a real trick to this one and it can bite cops and others just the same. To use this one, you must arrest a person who actually has stolen property on him. The law says that any person has the right to prevent the consequences of a theft by seizing stolen property and taking it with the person that had it to a magistrate or to a police officer for that purpose. But this means you must be right that the person has stolen property on them or you are committing a crime yourself.

So, in Texas, my advice if you have to arrest someone is to keep them proned out on the ground, not to approach them, and to call the police immediately. Be prepared for an officer to refuse to book them and don't take it personally. You will have at least protected yourself.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:21 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:52 pm

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

I agree. The way I see it is they did not actually witness Aubrey committing a crime. They knew nothing of his history. They just assumed the random black jogger must have done something illegal.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arbery-files/
Georgia law is different from Texas law. It is not necessary that anyone "actually witness Aubrey committing a crime." GA 17-4-60 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://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/ga ... or-arrest/

Not only did they not witness any crime, they had no reasonable and articulable cause to believe any felony had occurred. Suspecting someone may have committed a felony is not the same as having KNOWLEDGE of someone committing a felony. But we shall see.

Everyone is entitled to a defense and so the perps get their chance to defend themselves. Sometimes it is clear when a murder has been committed. This is one of those times.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:36 am

oljames3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:21 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:52 pm

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

I agree. The way I see it is they did not actually witness Aubrey committing a crime. They knew nothing of his history. They just assumed the random black jogger must have done something illegal.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arbery-files/
Georgia law is different from Texas law. It is not necessary that anyone "actually witness Aubrey committing a crime." GA 17-4-60 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://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/ga ... or-arrest/

Not only did they not witness any crime, they had no reasonable and articulable cause to believe any felony had occurred. Suspecting someone may have committed a felony is not the same as having KNOWLEDGE of someone committing a felony. But we shall see.

GA law is different from Texas law. Attorney Andre Branca discusses GA law at this link starting at 6:00 minutes. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arb ... y-14-2020/

https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if the guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:19 pm https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?

Texas has rules of evidence and so does GA. http://ga.elaws.us/law/24

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:19 pm https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?

I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.

And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this young “lady” (wink wink) is a STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”

BigGuy wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:36 pm [quote=03Lightningrocks post_id=<a href="tel:1307908">1307908</a> time=<a href="tel:1620699825">1620699825</a> user_id=3350]
[quote=Soccerdad1995 post_id=<a href="tel:1307892">1307892</a> time=<a href="tel:1620684026">1620684026</a> user_id=19815]
[quote=philip964 post_id=<a href="tel:1307889">1307889</a> time=<a href="tel:1620682859">1620682859</a> user_id=6460]
https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?
[/quote]

I don't see Citizens arrest action in the same category as self defense or a a castle doctrine action. In the first situation one is attempting to make an arrest after seeing a crime. In the second situation one is utilizing self defense when the crime is against them. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an attorney and did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
[/quote]

First of all, I am not a lawyer. The great wisdom I'm about to dispense comes from a 3 day class I took a couple of years ago. So, here goes.

I believe the term "Citizen's Arrest" is a misnomer that could lead to some unfortunate decisions. From what I remember from my Level III security class is that citizens (and that's what commissioned Security Officers are) have no arrest powers. Any citizen may detain another citizen for sufficient reason. (I'm still pretty vague on what is a "sufficient" reason) I know that in my case I never get physical or attempt to detain without physical threat to me or those entitled to my protection. If somebody doesn't follow the rules, I ask them to leave. If they refuse, I call the police.

Even in the case of theft, I won't go hands on. I'll try to bluff them into surrendering and take them to a holding room until the police arrive. If they run, I'll be a good witness. I have NO qualified immunity. I'm not an employee of the state. That's not cowardice. In court I'll be judged by a jury that doesn't understand I'm not a cop and will hate me with the same passion reserved for police. They will hear that the boy I took down has severe injuries and was a good boy trying to turn his life around. That black eye proves brain damage because this Rent-a-cop thought he had authority.

Once a citizen detains another citizen, they must immediately notify a constable. (Police Officer) The constable will determine whether or not an arrest is warranted. And if the detaining citizen doesn't have a justifiable reason for the detainment, they may be the one arrested.

And I at least have a license that should provide a reason for my actions. A regular citizen won't even have that. Remember what an angle Travon Martin was. I'm not in hurry to be the next George Zimmerman.
[/quote]

KC5AV wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:27 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:19 pm https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?

I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.

And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this young “lady” (wink wink) is a STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”

Agreee 1000000% with every last word you said. Not sure why the guy above suggested that it should be used. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.

So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.

Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.

That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?
[/quote]

I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.

And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this young “lady” (wink wink) is a STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”
[/quote]

Agreee 1000000% with every last word you said. Not sure why the guy above suggested that it should be used. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
[/quote]