Citizens arrest / fleeing felon

[90volts]

I found this from a thread several years ago and was wondering g if the law is still the same. This seems to say that if you witness someone commit a felony (of certain types) and they attempt to flee, that you are justified in killing them in an attempt to stop them.

Got me thinking about the nightclub bouncer who was attacked after closing and shot the attacker in the back. I am guessing the law has changed or there was so e other type of circumstance I was not aware of. Anyone have any further info?

A "citizen's arrest" is legal in Pennsylvania.

Actually, this very issue was recently reaffirmed by the Pa. Supreme Court. See Kopko v. Miller, 586 Pa. 170, 185 (Pa. 2006). The thing is, it only works for certain types of offenses (felony and other limited classes too complicated to get in to) personally witnessed by the citizen.

As an aside, there is a misconception about what an "arrest" actually is. An "arrest" is any "seizure" of a person. A person is "seized," in brief, whenever you're telling him that he can't leave. So, if someone tries to shoot you, you disarm him and hold him at gunpoint, while waiting for the Police to arrive, you've arrested him.

This is different from a formal or agency arrest (like the one that Steve would execute) where he formally takes the person into the custody of the institution and begins the process of filing formal charges. (I think this what your post means, Steve).

The distinction isn't really important -- the point is that you're technically "arresting" someone when you engage in the above behavior. You needn't say any nonsense about "I'm placing you under citizen's arrest" or any bullshit like that. Your actions create the end result of an arrest, basically.

(As a total random and unrelated "isn't it cool" sort of fact: Courts (I don't know whether in Pa.) regularly hold that a person may be prosecuted for resisting an arrest by a citizen, provided that the arrest itself is valid and executed in good faith.)

Relevant portions of the above referenced case follow (emphasis added by me):

-------

"We note that the power of Sheriffs to arrest for crimes committed in their presence is no different from that of a private citizen. In Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), we reiterated that "a private person [***24] in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have [**775] always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified." However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held that:

from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.


Id.at 240. See Commonwealth v. Corley, 316 Pa. Super. 327, 462 A.2d 1374, 1379 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("we hold that a citizen's arrest can be made for a breach of the peace that is personally observed by the arrestor."), aff'd on other grounds, 507 Pa. 540, 491 A.2d 829, 834 (Pa. 1985) (declining to rule on the issue).
-------

[Carson]

.....This seems to say that if you witness someone commit a felony (of certain types) and they attempt to flee, that you are justified in killing them in an attempt to stop them.
.....

Oh boy !

[MARINE DIVISION TWO]

Oh boy !

THIS !

[tl_3237]

I'm unaware of any change to the Chermansky holding of 1968. In fact SCOPA cited that specific language from Chermansky in a 2006 ruling (Kopko v. Miller) thereby tacitly reaffirming the holding.

That being said, I would be hesitant to try a citizens arrest in any but the most extreme circumstances. Especially knowing that my actions and supposed justifications occurring in an emotionally charged moment will be dissected and evaluated at leisure by the courts and juries both at the criminal and civil level.

There are a few old threads hashing out the question somewhere here.

[BimmerJon]

I've performed a "citizens arrest" only twice and both for the same reason
DUI

I felt with a high sense of probability that if I didn't do something, people were certain to die

I can't think of a case Id ever use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon unless imminent danger was present

[Cornhusker]

Tennessee v. Garner 1974. To summarize...Shooting a fleeing felon is generally not ok. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

[tl_3237]

Tennessee v. Garner 1974. To summarize...Shooting a fleeing felon is generally not ok. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) involved the shooting of a knowingly unarmed burglary suspect fleeing from police after being told to 'halt'. The SCOTUS decision has as its basis a 4th Amendment question and hinged on TN law and police policy:

In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy

SCOTUS also weighed in on the application of common law regarding deadly force on "fleeing felons" noting that state laws are trending against its application but they did not opine that it was no longer allowed. Also they made a distinction about the case in hand being one of 'property' crime' versus a 'violent' crime. This may fall in with the SCOPA limiting pronouncement in Chermansky.

The final holding in Garner:

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That being said, there does not seem to be a bright line rule when a private citizen can use deadly force when making a 'citizens arrest'. Yes, we have Chermansky but , as I said before, the circumstances of the encounter will be weighed heavily by the subsequent 'triers' of your actions. Unless you can present a cogent and convincing argument that the felon was armed and dangerous, he presented a clear and present danger to the public at large upon escape and his detainment was impossible without the application of deadly force, it would be better to be a good-eyewitness rather than an active participant. This is presuming that the felonious activity has ceased and the perpetrator is merely attempting to leave the scene. Of course the provisions of self-defense and defense of others (18 Pa CS §505, 506) remain in play independent of the 'fleeing felon' issue but they can only be invoked when all their prerequisite conditions are fulfilled at the time of force application.

Other considerations/game changers:
1. if the force application is being made at the behest of an LEO under §508;
2. unless self-protection, protection of others, or law enforcement is in play then the civil liability protection of the newer "stand your ground/castle" doctrine (42 Pa CS §8340.2) would not be invocable.

[justashooter]

Tennessee v. Garner 1974. To summarize...Shooting a fleeing felon is generally not ok. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but the PA courts have indicated that there are circumstances in which a fleeing felon may be shot, given the presence of a reasonable assumption that they may not be identifiable and thereby aprehendable at a later time, or that they are intending to commit another "heinous crime against the body" in the immediate future:

"A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.
The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today. Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law.2 Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct."
Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 173-174 (Pa. 1968) (citations and footnotes omitted).http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...13411915377100

[Bang]

As pointed out above, I would not trust being able to convey my position and legitimate reasons to judge and jury.

Example...I try to say he already robbed at gunpoint and it looked like he was really thinking about shooting the victim. His getting away would be a danger to another person who may be killed next time.

Objection. Conjecture on his being close to shooting the victim. Conjecture that he would ever rob again. Sustained. The jury will disregard those remarks by the witness.

Sorry... I'd like to help, but the realities are against it being worthwhile.

[knight0334]

Tennessee v. Garner 1974. To summarize...Shooting a fleeing felon is generally not ok. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

TN v Gardner was about law enforcement officers use of force. It did not apply to the average person.

The reason why the courts came to that conclusion is because LEO's are an arm of the government and people are afforded a right to Due Process before being killed, except in certain situations.