Arizona Revised Statutes involving Arrests

Arizona Revised Statutes
A.R.S. 13-3881, Arrest:
A. 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.
Arrests may be done in the following ways: (1) through the arrester putting his/ her hands on or touching the arrestee; (2) through any action suggesting the arrester’s intent to detain the arrestee and subjecting the latter to the former’s actual will and control; or (3) through the arrestee’s consent. All arrests involve restraint, which needs to be under pretended or actual legal authority. But it is not necessary for formal words suggesting arrest or for a booking at a police station for the act to be considered an arrest. An objective test helps ascertain whether or not an arrest has occurred in a given case, resting on whether reasonable individuals under such a circumstance would believe they were detained or went free. Reasonable individuals may be defined as those not blameworthy of any criminal behavior, or of being excessively apprehensive, or of not being sensitive to the situation’s seriousness. Reasonableness may not be decided based on the defendant's subjective fears or knowledge. Furthermore, law enforcers’ subjective intent is usually not relevant to the court's determination of whether or not an arrest took place, unless the arrester makes known his/ her intent. Therefore, a defendant consenting to be taken to the police station isn’t an arrest by mere virtue of the official’s personal opinion that he/ she cannot freely leave, absent the act suggesting detention intent.
Arrests involve taking an individual into custody for the intended or actual purpose of administering the law or bringing the arrestee to court. A conflict typically exists between the complainant’s subjective view and the view of the official- defendant on whether or not an arrest was attempted or had actually taken place. While this problem commonly crops up in cases of false arrest claims, it applies to battery and assault cases as well. Indeed, parties might switch positions in cases of battery and assault, with the law enforcement officer stating an arrest was being attempted or made while the complainant contends that unprivileged battery occurred as no arrest action was underway. Courts normally respond by employing a standard that basically ignores both parties’ views, that is, whether or not a reasonable individual in the complainant's position would feel he/ she was being detained and not at a liberty to leave freely. It suffices that the complainant submits to forceful apprehension to be reasonably understood from defendant conduct, though no force has been explicitly threatened or actually employed.
B. No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restraint than necessary for his detention.
According to Amendment IV of the American Constitution, arrests come under the category of seizures; hence, the procedures involving the apprehension of an individual need to be compliant with the safeguards Amendment IV guarantees to US citizens or it will not be validated and all proofs fathered at the time of arrest or during confessions that are made subsequent to the apprehension will be typically suppressed. According to a United States Supreme Court ruling, arrests performed in the absence of a legal arrest warrant grounded in Probable Cause will presumptively be invalid under Amendment IV. Likewise, arrests that are performed using a warrant subsequently declared defective can be declared as invalid as well, unless the law enforcement official acted with sincere intent when procuring the arrest warrant and performing the arrest.
A law enforcement official who makes an otherwise lawful arrest is privileged, under the law, to employ necessary force in a reasonable manner for effecting custody. Therefore, he/ she is allowed to strike the arrestee when attempting the arrest, particularly if the arrestee strikes first. The justification for this act isn’t unlimited: The arrest might be legal but force is disallowed if the arrestee does not offer any resistance; also, resistance is justified if excessive force is exerted by the official. Minimal force for effecting custody, such as by handcuffing, is allowed. In case warrantless arrests aren’t allowed in a particular instance, all privileges to employ force are negated. Analytically, force may be used during apprehensions in the following four instances:
· Force for arrest completion;
· Force for overcoming resistance to arrest;
· Self-defense; and
· Force for maintaining or regaining custody.
A.R.S. 13-3882, Time of Making Arrest: An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night
Under certain circumstances, law enforcers may enter an individual’s place of residence and apprehend the occupant at any time of day. But Amendment IV specifies certain constitutional protections for safeguarding citizens against unlawful detention and unreasonable search/ seizure operations. Search/seizure of an individual or his/ her property performed by governmental authorities needs to be reasonable according to constitutional amendment IV. In general, law enforcement officers don’t require warrants for apprehending an individual. For instance, arrests conducted in public areas require no warrant. But this rule has certain exceptions. Normally, under non- emergency conditions, law enforcers require an appropriate warrant for effectively arresting an individual at their place of residence. Moreover, law enforcers need to knock on the door, identify themselves and state their purpose of visiting prior to forcing entry. In case this condition is violated by the officer, the arrest can be declared unlawful and invalid. But in instances normally involving drugs, where law enforcers carry warrants, this preliminary knock and identify rule need not be followed. With a warrant in hand, the police can make arrests whenever they see fit. In case they are called for a disturbance, arrests may be made, but only with probable cause.
A.R.S. 13-3884, Arrest by Private Person: A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
Arrest by a citizen follows almost the same process as arrest carried out by a law enforcement officer. The arrest process involves the guilty individual’s apprehension and restraint, and permits weapon confiscation by the arrester. What makes apprehension by a citizen notable is: it is specifically performed by a civilian, and not an officially- recognized law enforcer. Only under particular circumstances may a citizen perform an arrest; these conditions differ from one state to another. Citizen arrests may not be conducted simply because the arrestee is detested or is only suspected of illegal activity. According to Arizonian legislature, a private individual can arrest another if an offense or misconduct breaching peace is witnessed, including but not restricted to, burglary, physical assault, persecution, disorderly conduct, and cruel treatment of animals. Further, citizen arrests may be conducted if an offense is committed and the civilian has reasonable cause to suspect the potential arrestee of offending. In such an arrest case, the arrester needs to notify the arrestee of the reason for arrest, as would be the course adopted by a law enforcement official in such a situation (Marroquin, n.d.). However, the only instance where this wouldn’t be performed is: in case the individual being apprehended tries to forcibly resist or run away, or if the information would jeopardize the arrest. The arrester may not utilize unreasonable or unnecessary force.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Arrests by citizens are a constitutional right under Amendment IX, since its consequences include the person’s natural self- preservation right and defense. In fact, citizen arrest- related laws are seemingly based on Amendment II’s efficacy. In simple words, without firepower, a civilian will probably not be capable of arresting another. According to Arizonan state law (A.R.S), citizen apprehensions are valid when public offenses are perpetrated in the arrester’s presence or if the arrester has reasonable cause to believe the arrestee has perpetrated an offense, whether in the arrester’s presence or absence. Citizen arrest rights date back to the time of the English common law. Traditionally, prior to the contemporary police department system, citizen arrests formed a key component of law enforcement in and by the community. In the present day, all states still consider private citizen- conducted arrests to be lawful, though state laws on citizen-conducted arrests do not remain uniform. Normally, all states allows such arrests if the crime (a serious offense that whose typical punishment is, at the very least, a one- year jail sentence) is personally witnessed by the arrester, or the citizen’s aid is sought by law enforcement officials in carrying out an arrest. State law variations stem in instances of misdemeanors, peace violations, and offenses not actually witnessed by the arrester. Once an individual has perpetrated a crime that warrants citizen arrest (according to the relevant state law), the arrester needs to comply with specific guidelines for detaining the suspect and handing him over to the concerned authorities. Acceptable guidelines to perform a citizen arrest differ from one state to another as well. Generally, the arrester needs to inform the suspect of why he/ she is being apprehended, and can enter the suspect’s place of residence using reasonable force. In most instances, the individual needs to be caught either in action or fleeing from and being pursued by the authorities, for lawfully making a citizen arrest. Particularly, if the arrest is being carried out for some indictable crime – the gravest category of crimes including violent crimes – the arrest may only be made when actually witnessing the crime being perpetrated. It is unlawful to apprehend an individual for perpetrating an indictable crime after a certain amount of time has lapsed, unless it relates to the arrester’s property. In case of crimes perpetrated on or relative to the arrester’s property, the arrester can either:
· Perform the arrest when the crime is underway; or
· Apprehend the individual within a reasonable duration of having discovered that an offense has been perpetrated.
A.R.S. 13-3889, Method of Arrest by Private Person: A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he 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 person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
According to ARS section 3889, if a private citizen is about to perform an arrest, he/ she needs to first notify the potential arrestee of the arrest intent and reason for arrest unless the individual is caught red- handed on the scene of the crime, or resists, or is running away from the scene of crime, or when giving information that will jeopardize the arrest. This needs to be followed by the legal obligation to deliver the arrestee, without any unnecessary delays, to law enforcement authorities (policemen, magistrate, etc.) and lodge an official complaint with the magistrate, unless the police officer is ready to do it. All this makes citizen arrests a daunting act. On account of the associated liability and inherent danger of touching a criminal, much less actually arresting the individual, citizens are usually advised to get in contact with law enforcement authorities in case they witness a crime. They can do better by simply being a good witness. But rare occasions do arise when, in felonious situations, citizen arrests prove highly valuable. This principle is employed in retail stores by loss prevention officials for detaining individuals believed to have stolen goods from stores.
Citizen arrests need to be done by taken into careful consideration the associated risk factors and grave unintentional consequences for the arrester and other involved parties. In a majority of instances, arrests involve actual seizure or touching the individual’s body for making the arrest. Prior to deciding on whether or not to carry out the arrest, the citizen needs to familiarize him/ herself with Citizen's Arrest Laws, besides keeping the following points in mind:
· Is the intervention of a peace official feasible in this case? If it is, it would be prudent for the citizen to notify the official of the offense rather than taking action by themselves.
· Arrest attempts by civilians can compromise the personal safety of the arrester as well as other civilians. Related considerations include whether or not the suspect possesses a firearm and is alone.
· Can the arrester hand the suspect over to the authorities without any delay after making the arrest?
· Does the arrester have reasonable cause to believe the individual has perpetrated an offense?
In case a citizen decides to arrest an offender, he/ she ought to:
· Clearly inform the suspect of the intent to make a citizen arrest and detain the individual until the law enforcement authorities arrive.
· Contact the police.
· Explicitly seek the arrestee’s cooperation until law enforcement officials arrive.
· Avoid the use of force, if possible, or at least use minimum force.
· Don’t interrogate the arrestee or search his/her possessions. The citizen arrest’s purpose is to merely temporarily detain the individual until the arrival of the concerned authorities.
· When the law enforcement authorities arrive, clearly explain what happened.
After carrying out an arrest, a private citizen arrester needs to deliver the arrestee to the respective county’s most accessible or closest magistrate or peace officer. In case the arrestee is taken directly by the arrester to the magistrate’s office, a "complaint" needs to first be lodged describing the crime committed. This step in the procedure might even be required if a peace officer is approached first, when the arrest wasn’t witnessed by the peace officer and he/ she cannot provide an adequate account of the arrest.
A.R.S. 13-3892, Right of Private Person to Break into Building: A private person, in order to make an arrest where a felony was committed in his presence, as authorized in section 13-3884, 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 he is refused admittance after he has announced his purpose.
For a private individual to arrest a criminal when an offense is perpetrated before the arrester’s eyes, if the former is refused entry when he/ she declares his/ her purpose of visit, it is permitted to break open any window or door of a building wherein the suspect is reasonably thought to be. Arizonan state law on citizen’s arrest requires sufficient expression, through action or words, of the citizen’s intention to apprehend the suspect. Subsequent to expression of the individual’s intention to apprehend, reasonable force may be utilized under the particular circumstances for restraining and confining the arrestee. The civilian need not read the suspect his rights as law enforcement officials do. The moment the individual is apprehended, law enforcement authorities may be notified and the suspect handed over to them upon their arrival. While the suspect is in the citizen’s custody, the citizen ought to ensure the suspect is kept in a safe place, where they won’t be injured in any way.
Usually, in the course of citizen’s arrests, the arrester has the authority to employ reasonable force for detaining the offender until the time law enforcement authorities arrive. In case a crime being perpetrated is witnessed by a civilian arrester and the criminal subsequently barricades himself or hides in any building, and is not armed, Arizona State law accords citizens the authority of breaking and entering the building to perform the arrest. Prior to breaking and entering, the arrester needs to find out whether the suspect has indeed barricaded himself by declaring his/ her presence, and waiting for the individual to come out – a requirement legally known as the “knock- and- announce” rule. The rule serves the purpose of according individuals a chance to respond in order to prevent violence and safeguard privacy. But the arrester needs to bear in mind the fact that this constitutes a general rule. After knocking and announcing his/ her presence, the citizen needs to wait for a reasonable duration for the suspect to reach and answer the door. In the event this doesn’t happen, the citizen is allowed to forcefully enter. Here, the commonly occurring problem is: for how long should a citizen wait prior to forcing entry? The US Supreme Court authorizes forcible entries after a 5 to 20 second wait. Courts usually don’t require extended waits as defendants may attempt to destroy any evidence implicating them before the forced entry. Also, in case the arrester fails to knock and announce prior to forcing entry, a majority of courts don’t automatically deem the entry and search/ seizure to be illegal. Rather, they simply regard it as one of the “factors” in deciding whether or not the forcible entry and search/ seizure were reasonable.
Lastly, according to the law, the citizen is only allowed to utilize reasonably necessary force when detaining suspects. In other words, the force utilized needs to be in proportion to the conduct of the arrestee and should not go beyond the force needed for preventing the arrestee from absconding. This gives rise to a few key questions regarding intruders in an individual’s place of residence. Imagine the stranger who has forced entry (or has entered by consent) is unarmed, and rummages through the suspect’s home. If the arrestee grabs a baseball bat or knife, may it be lawfully utilized? In a majority of states, self- defense may be a defense but any action on the part of the homeowner must be reasonably proportionate to concerns for their own safety, and not guided by rage or fear for loss of property by stealing. In Arizona State, individuals are allowed to employ lethal force for protecting their homes and families without any repercussions. Thus, the citizen carrying out the arrest needs to clearly tell the arrestee the reason for detaining them: for instance, "I am holding you in custody as I witnessed you stealing from that jewelry shop" and promptly hand them over to the law enforcement authorities.



References
Marroquin, B. (n.d.). Laws Regarding Citizen's Arrest in Arizona. . Retrieved from http://legalbeagle.com/8592494-laws-regarding-citizens-arrest-arizona.html