19

In the United States, can a non citizen make a citizen's arrest? Does this vary by state?

Heddy
  • 631
  • 1
  • 5
  • 23
probablysillyquestion
  • 191
  • 2
  • 3
  • 2
    Citizens arrest varies by state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_States and also seems to be tied up in common law, written law, and case law https://solutions-institute.org/tools/citizens-arrest-laws-by-state/ . There may be state level limits on who can make the arrest. – Freiheit Jul 12 '21 at 13:46
  • 2
    @Freiheit There are no states that distinguish by the citizenship of an arresting person. – ohwilleke Jul 12 '21 at 17:52

2 Answers2

41

Yes.

The meaning of "citizen" in "citizen's arrest" has nothing to do with citizenship. It just means "ordinary person" or "member of the public" — as opposed to "a law enforcement officer".

Greendrake
  • 27,460
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126
17

For the purposes of “citizen’s arrest” statutes, the use of the word “citizen” is interpreted broader than a citizen of a State or a national of the U.S..

It may still, however, exclude certain categories: Staff of a consular post or diplomatic mission would probably be excluded from engaging in such activity and the same probably applies for members of foreign law enforcement in their official capacities unless with special authorizations etc.

(Analogous or similar example: Frontex officers (EU boarder patrols) patrolling with local police in Member States of the EU may not carry out arrests even though they are lawfully carrying out their border patrols with local authorities and assistance of local law enforcement.)

kisspuska
  • 3,924
  • 8
  • 43
  • 4
    "Staff of a consular post or diplomatic mission would probably be excluded from engaging in such activity" Why? – Mast Jul 12 '21 at 10:02
  • 3
    Customary international law governs all non-expressed matters of the 2 Vienna conventions including relating to proportionality in immunity and non-interference. Of these envoys, even the most basic rights for a resident, citizen or person of similar status in the receiving State, are enumerated in these conventions, including the right to movement in the receiving State; this infers that rights not enumerated are not granted. And I don’t see any basis of a “citizen’s arrest” by a member of a consular staff founded in customary law regardless if they would, personally, enjoy immunity. – kisspuska Jul 12 '21 at 15:08
  • 1
    (A persona non grata designation is not unreasonable for interference in the sovereignty of the receiving State and that is enough of a punishment both personally and diplomatically for the sending State.) It’s not as clear for members of the consular staff when they are not on consular premises and not carrying out their official capacities. If they are also a national of the receiving State, their relation to a consular post would probably most probably not have relevance in their engagement. – kisspuska Jul 12 '21 at 15:09
  • This staff would have immunity, so if they tried a citizens arrest and it was found illegal, they couldn't be charged. So in a situation where it's dubious whether I could do a citizen's arrest or not, consular staff could go ahead without fear. – gnasher729 Jul 12 '21 at 19:59
  • 1
    Only the consular staff (non-administrative, non-service) have immunity and only while carrying out official duties. They don’t have personal immunity, and they are, for the purposes of a citizen’s arrest, might be deemed a citizen-equivalent off-duty. And therefore, if the act is found illegal under the relevant statute, they will be charged, and that’s the least concerning part. The diplomatic repercussions could be dire if they are found to be staff of a consular post regardless of the off-duty private capacity let alone if they asserted immunity. – kisspuska Jul 12 '21 at 20:31
  • Immunity is there out of recognition of sovereignty and asserting trust, a prerequisite of “friendly consular/diplomatic relations”, and, therein, there is a presumption of probity. Immunity is not there to “go ahead without fear” and engage in unlawful conduct; it’s there on the presumption of the exact opposite, and that the person would subject its actions in the best interest of “friendly relations” between the sending and receiving States. – kisspuska Jul 12 '21 at 20:39
  • @kisspuska: I think you got those two conditions for immunity wrong. Consular staff has flat-out immunity; other employees have immunity when in function. Vienna Convention, Articles 29 and 37 respectively. Still, as you note correctly, whether an act or not is illegal is entirely independent of the question whether that diplomat is then judges persona non grata. The receiving state can simply ignore an illegal arrest, and equally well they can expel a diplomat over a legal arrest. – MSalters Jul 13 '21 at 14:28
  • @MSalters the Convention you are looking at is the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations; the staff of diplomatic missions enjoy personal immunity. Consular relations are governed between the party States by the 1963 V. Convention on Consular Relations, including Article 41 on limited liabilities of consular officers, a narrower than inviolability and Article 43 “Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.” – kisspuska Jul 13 '21 at 14:52
  • Perhaps include some of the information in comments in your answer (*without* "Edit:", "Update:", or similar - the answer should appear as if it was written right now)? – Peter Mortensen Jul 13 '21 at 15:48
  • @PeterMortensen I don’t think the particularity of these nieche cases are worth much more than the line or two I put in there, but I’ll put Article references when I’ll be on my computer – kisspuska Jul 13 '21 at 15:51