Security Guards

[p.dath]

At the end of the day the store guard security is actually assisting the Police in a way they could not otherwise achieve. To hold some with video evidece of the crime to ensure a safe conviction is something that is not in their interests to stop.

You state that the criminal has rights however these rights only come into force if anyone actually listens to them. The incentives to plead guilty and end the ordeal by far outweigh any potential for redress.

The police are unlikely to want to cut off the hand that feeds them.

I completely agree with the first bit. The Police can't be everywhere, and they really could do with support for more serious crimes.

Having video evidence of the thief taking something from a supermarket makes no difference though. It makes no difference if the person is guilty or innocent. The issue is that already citizens like you and me do not have the power to detain other people. However Mully has raised a point, and I think he is right - you could legally detain someone for a *serious* offence (and this does not include petty theft) if you first placed them under citizens arrest and complied with the procedure for arresting someone in the Crimes Act 1961.
However doing this is so dangerous you wouldn't normally want to risk it.

With regards to your last statement, if the thief lays a complaint against the store manager and security guard, and its a serious one of kidnapping with a serious jail sentence, the Police pretty much have to investigate it. It's out of their hands.

[kave]

It is true that for shoplifting and other crimes that have a maximum sentence of less than three years you cannot make a citizens arrest during the day. At night if anyone does anything against the act you can arrest them. Also, you have to remember that if someone is operating on a property that they have been hired to protect, then they becomes a lawful occupier which gives you all sorts of powers under the summary offences act, which enables you to arrest for crimes such as:

*Common assault
*Assault on Police, prison, or traffic officer
*Ill-treatment or wilful neglect of child
*Leaving child without reasonable supervision and care
*Wilful damage
*Graffiti vandalism, tagging, defacing, etc
*Possession of graffiti implements
*Being found on property, etc, without reasonable excuse
*Peeping or peering into dwellinghouse

as long as you hand the person arrested over to a constable as soon as is practical.

[Mully]

With regards to your last statement, if the thief lays a complaint against the store manager and security guard, and its a serious one of kidnapping with a serious jail sentence, the Police pretty much have to investigate it. It's out of their hands.

Hmm, interesting. Has this actually happened in NZ, though? I'd be interested if any scumbag has done thought to do this.

Would the Police take it seriously or "seriously"? Can't they refuse to prosecute if it's in the public interest (i.e. no-one will assist the Police any more if they might get prosecuted for it), or is that for the "can't-beat-your-kids" law only?

*Peeping or peering into dwellinghouse

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

[kave]

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

Peep sneakily. It's not illegal if you don't get caught.

[Insanity_rules]

I heard that security guards have the power of mince pie knock out breath, B O Defense shield and the mighty mag lite rectal probe. I have been too scared to ask.

[p.dath]

Hmm, interesting. Has this actually happened in NZ, though? I'd be interested if any scumbag has done thought to do this.

Would the Police take it seriously or "seriously"? Can't they refuse to prosecute if it's in the public interest (i.e. no-one will assist the Police any more if they might get prosecuted for it), or is that for the "can't-beat-your-kids" law only?

So I could be arrested for this?

What the hell am I meant to do at night now, then?

I don't know whether it has happened or not, but I suspect it must have happened. But my bet is that most stores would aim to settle the matter out of court. The PR would be terrible.

I'm not aware of any act of parliament requiring them to investigate, but I be very surprised if they elected not to investigate a serious criminal charge.

And certainly, some rich kids day could certainly afford a private prosecution.

Your comment about assisting the Police - if you are directed or requested by the Police to help then you are effectively granted immunity from prosecution. So that is a special case.
It is only dangerous if you decide to take action yourself.


If it affects your job then I would ask your boss to consult a criminal lawyer for guidance and establish a policy to protect the safety of the companies employees. I think it is also reasonable the company indemnify you against being personally sued - since the law permits allowing you to be sued directly for this.
But otherwise express to your boss your concern that it is illegal to imprison and physically restrain individuals for petty theft.

You can ask people over 16 years of age to accompany you, and as long as they comply willingly your fine.

Just because your boss asks you to do something doesn't make it legal.

[p.dath]

Also don't forget the quote kave made about "night time" - but I still put it to you that you put yourself into a legally dangerous position if you place someone under arrest.

s(36) Arrest of Person Believed to be Committing Crime by Night
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.

[p.dath]

Also consider this case - you legally arrest the person, they go before the judge, and they get discharged without conviction because it is their first offence (not uncommon unfortunately).

Now consider this. They have not been found guilty. Your are now open to civil prosecution for wrongfull arrest.

[Felicks]

There are certainly some interesting views held here. The relevant law has already been quoted.

Yes - arrest includes the issue of detention, in fact detention usually occurrs before arrest. Hence the Bill of Rights can apply before someone is actually arrested.

Arrest without warrant is not citizens arrest. Without warrant refers to the situation where a warrant to arrest has not been issued. This would be a bench warrant (come from a Judge) or a warrant issued by a registrar (normally) pursuant to section 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act. There are also statuatory powers pursuant to specific Act like the Arms Act and Misuse of Drugs Act. But in summary, most detentions and arrests are effected 'without warrant'.

Of all the shoplifters I've seen arrested, I haven't seen one challenge his/her alleged unlawful detention. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen however if it were straight forward, I'm sure it should have happened by now. I'll have to ask around and see if I can find out.

Don't assume that because someone makes a complaint of 'something', a prosecution will result. The circumstances, known facts and public interest are only some of the things that can be taken into consideration before deciding whether or not to investigate a case, let alone charge. I can confirm the Police are pretty realistic and reasonable when it comes to sorting out 'opposing sides'.

Of course there is always the private prosecution. Very rare but they can happen. Having said that, they still don't necessarily succeed. e.g. Constable A from a Police shooting in the North Island years ago.

[scumdog]

I don't know whether it has happened or not, but I suspect it must have happened. But my bet is that most stores would aim to settle the matter out of court. The PR would be terrible.

The thieving drongos normally know when they're screwed.
Loosers.

[SARGE]

I know it goes against everything Kiwibiker stands for, but here are some facts.

The Crimes Act 1961, s(35) states that everyone is justified in arresting without a warrant when you find:


(b)Any person you find by night committing any offense against the Act.
(night refers to the time between 2100 and 0600)

Also During Night Hours

s(36) Arrest of Person Believed to be Committing Crime by Night
Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night in circumstances affording reasonable and probable grounds for believing that that person is committing an offence against this Act.

meh ... if i catch someone committing crimes against me at night there wont be much left to arrest ...

[SMOKEU]

If a citizens arrest was illegal for 'minor shoplifting', think of this scenario:

Someone puts stolen licence plates onto his/her car. They then drive to a supermarket, park in the car park, enter the store and steal $400 worth of cosmetics. Upon leaving the store, store security tell the thief to stop and open up their bag. The thief doesn't comply and the security guard doesn't physically touch them for fear of prosecution. The thief then walks out to their car and they drive off. Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.

This is why thieves must be restrained, otherwise they would get away with theft a lot more often.

[jono035]

If a citizens arrest was illegal for 'minor shoplifting', think of this scenario:

Someone puts stolen licence plates onto his/her car. They then drive to a supermarket, park in the car park, enter the store and steal $400 worth of cosmetics. Upon leaving the store, store security tell the thief to stop and open up their bag. The thief doesn't comply and the security guard doesn't physically touch them for fear of prosecution. The thief then walks out to their car and they drive off. Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.

This is why thieves must be restrained, otherwise they would get away with theft a lot more often.

Sorry mate, the law doesn't always work the way that you think is logical.

Sure, that is a scenario in which the shop gets a tougher end of the stick, but there are costs involved to personal rights and freedoms to allow this.

[SARGE]

Security then calls the police giving them the description of the vehicle and the licence plate. By the time the police arrive at the shop 10 minutes later, the thief is long gone.
.

10 minute police response?... where do YOU live?

[jono035]

From the legislation.govt.nz page on the Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 July 2009)

Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes
Every one is justified in arresting without warrant—
(a) any person whom he finds committing any offence against this Act for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment:
(b) any person whom he finds by night committing any offence against this Act.



an offence where the maximum punishment is 'not less than 3 years'... That would imply to me the person has to commit an offence that is punishable by MORE than 3 years max imprisonment to be arrestable? That means you could put someone under citizens arrest for manslaughter, but not shoplifting.

Edit: This seems more logical to me. People placing each other under citizen's arrest for minor crimes that may not normally be prosecuted (I saw him smack his kid in the supermarket! Citizen's arrest!)