Van Hollen Re: Citizens Arrest & Authority Private Guards & TSA

I ran across this and thought it might be useful info. It's a discussion of authority of Private security guards, citizens, and TSA agents in different possible scenarios. It's an interesting and informative read. The citizens arrest could be particularly useful to know if it's ever needed.

Click Here for JB Van Hollen's responses

Am I reading this right?

A law enforcement officer is entitled to arrest a person whenever the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a crime.

Click to expand...

That is garbage!

a) it's worse than that - I've been told, by someone whose legal understanding I trust, that SCOTUS recently decided that it was acceptable in TX for an officer to arrest a woman solely for not wearing a seatbelt. :cuss:

b) in WI law, crime = punishable by jail/prison

a private security guard may, in some circumstances where an alleged felony is involved, detain a person for up to ten minutes even if the guard does not personally witness the felony being committed. With regard to misdemeanors, I agree with your conclusion that a private security guard may not detain a suspect - for any length of time - if the guard does not personally witness the crime being committed.

Click to expand...

He goes on to say that detaining based on viewing a video "may be" illegal.
But based on his reasoning on pg. 3, the TSAgent could make a citizen's arrest if whatever imagined infraction constitued a "breach of the peace".
We know how rubbery that's been over the years.

protias said:

Am I reading this right? That is garbage!

Click to expand...

The traffic stop stuff that I have been posting is authority to make "an arrest without warrant" and requires only "reasonable suspicion." More...

ETA:968.07 Arrest by a law enforcement officer. (1) A law
enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
(a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding
that such person be arrested; or
(b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
grounds, that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in
this state; or
(c) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
grounds, that a felony warrant for the person’s arrest has been
issued in another state; or
(d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is
committing or has committed a crime.

ETA:968.07 Arrest by a law enforcement officer. (1) A law
enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
(a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding
that such person be arrested; or
(b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
grounds, that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in
this state; or
(c) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
grounds, that a felony warrant for the person’s arrest has been
issued in another state; or
(d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is
committing or has committed a crime.


939.12  Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.

Simple logic would imply that in Wisconsin a person may not be arrested for conduct punishable only by a forfieture.

emphasis = mine.

I agree, but worry about the effect of AB-237

In it's presentation of Case Law, the WI DOJ...

...has made it quite clear, that It's not clear at all. I can say that given the bullsh(t set forth by Van Hollen he makes it clear that third party intervention is never a wise choice. I don't know about the rest of you but, I will not get involved with any thing than does not present an imminent threat to those I conceder to be duty bound to protect, my family.


The WI DOJ, and law enforcement do not want a citizen to protect themselves, if they did, we would have the same legal protection from both criminal, and civil suits as they do in a good shoot. Anything goes down, I will retreat if possible. When the smoke clears I will be telling anyone who will listen that my actions were a direct result of the States intent to persecute a would be good actor.


This puts conceal carry in a less than piratical light. I am willing to give up the element of concealed surprise for the potential of open carry deterrent. boar out.

Yes, AB-237 is indeed worrisome.

MKEgal said:

a) it's worse than that - I've been told, by someone whose legal understanding I trust, that SCOTUS recently decided that it was acceptable in TX for an officer to arrest a woman solely for not wearing a seatbelt.

Click to expand...

Not to sidetrack from the Wisconsin discussion, but Texas law is pretty clear on that: every traffic infraction is a Class C misdemeanor or higher. A traffic ticket is a court summons -- an order to appear, or to plead guilty and pay the fine in advance. The traffic stop itself is an arrest. Other than speeding and open container, officers can take a driver into custody to appear before the magistrate for any infraction of the Texas Transportation Code.

wild boar said:

...has made it quite clear, that It's not clear at all. I can say that given the bullsh(t set forth by Van Hollen he makes it clear that third party intervention is never a wise choice. I don't know about the rest of you but, I will not get involved with any thing than does not present an imminent threat to those I conceder to be duty bound to protect, my family.

.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY. and well said.

KBCraig said:

Not to sidetrack from the Wisconsin discussion, but Texas law is pretty clear on that: every traffic infraction is a Class C misdemeanor or higher... Other than speeding and open container, officers can take a driver into custody to appear before the magistrate for any infraction of the Texas Transportation Code.

Click to expand...

That's screwey.
So people have the possibility ofbeing cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!

MKEgal said:

That's screwey.
So people have the possibility of being cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!

Click to expand...

Yep, where's our wannabe, with his, "you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" rap?

It is time to end that attitude.

MKEgal said:

That's screwey.
So people have the possibility ofbeing cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!

Click to expand...

Yes.

Most police departments have policies against custodial arrest for Class C traffic violations, but it's legally permissible (other than speeding and open container).

The Texas LEO who has the best explanation of the relevant statutory and case law is "srothstein" at texaschlforum.com. He's a good guy, by every measure.

If anyone wants follow-up, please post it in the Texas forum. Wisconsin has enough to worry about without interstate cross-talk.

See Wisconsin Statutes §§345.22 and 345.23 on "arrest without warrant" and subsequent legal actions.