Arizona Citizen Arrest Laws: ARS Statutes Explained

Overview of Arrest Under A.R.S. 13-3881

A.R.S. 13-3881, Arrest: 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 carried out in the following ways: (1) through the arrester putting his or 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 must be under pretended or actual legal authority. However, formal words suggesting arrest or a booking at a police station are not necessary for an 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 circumstances would believe they were detained or free to go. Reasonable individuals may be defined as those not guilty of any criminal behavior, not excessively apprehensive, and not insensitive to the seriousness of the situation. Reasonableness may not be decided based on the defendant's subjective fears or knowledge. Furthermore, law enforcers' subjective intent is generally not relevant to the court's determination of whether an arrest took place, unless the arrester makes known his or her intent. Therefore, a defendant consenting to be taken to the police station does not constitute an arrest merely because the official personally believes the defendant cannot freely leave, absent conduct suggesting detention intent.

Arrests involve taking an individual into custody for the intended or actual purpose of administering the law or bringing the arrestee before a court. A conflict typically exists between the complainant's subjective view and the view of the official-defendant on whether an arrest was attempted or actually took place. While this problem commonly arises in cases of false arrest claims, it applies to battery and assault cases as well. Parties might switch positions in battery and assault cases, with the law enforcement officer stating that an arrest was being attempted or made while the complainant contends that unprivileged battery occurred because no arrest action was underway. Courts normally respond by employing a standard that essentially ignores both parties' views — that is, whether a reasonable individual in the complainant's position would feel he or she was being detained and not free to leave. It suffices that the complainant submits to forceful apprehension reasonably understood from the defendant's conduct, even if no force has been explicitly threatened or actually employed.

Use of Force and Fourth Amendment Constraints

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. (A.R.S. 13-3881(B))

According to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, arrests fall under the category of seizures; therefore, the procedures involving the apprehension of an individual must comply with the protections the Fourth Amendment guarantees to U.S. citizens, or the arrest will not be validated. All evidence gathered at the time of arrest or during confessions made subsequent to the apprehension will typically be suppressed. According to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, arrests performed without a legal arrest warrant grounded in probable cause are presumptively invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, arrests performed using a warrant subsequently declared defective may also be declared invalid, unless the law enforcement official acted in good faith when procuring the arrest warrant and carrying out the arrest.

A law enforcement officer who makes an otherwise lawful arrest is privileged, under the law, to employ necessary force in a reasonable manner for effecting custody. The officer is therefore allowed to strike the arrestee when attempting the arrest, particularly if the arrestee strikes first. This justification is not unlimited: the arrest may be legal, but force is disallowed if the arrestee offers no resistance; likewise, resistance by the arrestee is justified if the officer uses excessive force. Minimal force for effecting custody — such as handcuffing — is permitted. In cases where warrantless arrests are not allowed, all privilege to employ force is negated. Analytically, force may be used during apprehensions in the following four instances:

Timing of Arrests Under A.R.S. 13-3882

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 enforcement officers may enter an individual's place of residence and apprehend the occupant at any time of day. However, the Fourth Amendment specifies certain constitutional protections safeguarding citizens against unlawful detention and unreasonable search and seizure. Any search or seizure of an individual or his or her property performed by governmental authorities must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

In general, law enforcement officers do not require warrants to arrest an individual. For instance, arrests conducted in public areas require no warrant. However, this rule has certain exceptions. Under non-emergency conditions, law enforcers normally require an appropriate warrant to effectively arrest an individual at their place of residence. Moreover, officers must knock on the door, identify themselves, and state their purpose before forcing entry. If this requirement is violated, the arrest may be declared unlawful and invalid. In instances typically involving drugs where law enforcers carry warrants, however, this preliminary knock-and-identify rule need not be followed. With a valid warrant, the police may make arrests whenever they see fit. When called for a disturbance, arrests may be made, but only with probable cause.