Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. 13-3881, Arrest:

A. 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 done in the following ways: (1) through the arrester putting his/ 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 needs to be under pretended or actual legal authority. But it is not necessary for formal words suggesting arrest or for a booking at a police station for the 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 a circumstance would believe they were detained or went free. Reasonable individuals may be defined as those not blameworthy of any criminal behavior, or of being excessively apprehensive, or of not being sensitive to the situation’s seriousness. Reasonableness may not be decided based on the defendant's subjective fears or knowledge. Furthermore, law enforcers’ subjective intent is usually not relevant to the court's determination of whether or not an arrest took place, unless the arrester makes known his/ her intent. Therefore, a defendant consenting to be taken to the police station isn’t an arrest by mere virtue of the official’s personal opinion that he/ she cannot freely leave, absent the act suggesting detention intent.

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

B. 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.

According to Amendment IV of the American Constitution, arrests come under the category of seizures; hence, the procedures involving the apprehension of an individual need to be compliant with the safeguards Amendment IV guarantees to US citizens or it will not be validated and all proofs fathered at the time of arrest or during confessions that are made subsequent to the apprehension will be typically suppressed. According to a United States Supreme Court ruling, arrests performed in the absence of a legal arrest warrant grounded in Probable Cause will presumptively be invalid under Amendment IV. Likewise, arrests that are performed using a warrant subsequently declared defective can be declared as invalid as well, unless the law enforcement official acted with sincere intent when procuring the arrest warrant and performing the arrest.

A law enforcement official who makes an otherwise lawful arrest is privileged, under the law, to employ necessary force in a reasonable manner for effecting custody. Therefore, he/ she is allowed to strike the arrestee when attempting the arrest, particularly if the arrestee strikes first. The justification for this act isn’t unlimited: The arrest might be legal but force is disallowed if the arrestee does not offer any resistance; also, resistance is justified if excessive force is exerted by the official. Minimal force for effecting custody, such as by handcuffing, is allowed. In case warrantless arrests aren’t allowed in a particular instance, all privileges to employ force are negated. Analytically, force may be used during apprehensions in the following four instances:

· Force for arrest completion;

· Force for overcoming resistance to arrest;

· Self-defense; and

· Force for maintaining or regaining custody.

A.R.S. 13-3882, Time of Making Arrest: An arrest may be made on any day and...

But Amendment IV specifies certain constitutional protections for safeguarding citizens against unlawful detention and unreasonable search/ seizure operations. Search/seizure of an individual or his/ her property performed by governmental authorities needs to be reasonable according to constitutional amendment IV. In general, law enforcement officers don’t require warrants for apprehending an individual. For instance, arrests conducted in public areas require no warrant. But this rule has certain exceptions. Normally, under non- emergency conditions, law enforcers require an appropriate warrant for effectively arresting an individual at their place of residence. Moreover, law enforcers need to knock on the door, identify themselves and state their purpose of visiting prior to forcing entry. In case this condition is violated by the officer, the arrest can be declared unlawful and invalid. But in instances normally involving drugs, where law enforcers carry warrants, this preliminary knock and identify rule need not be followed. With a warrant in hand, the police can make arrests whenever they see fit. In case they are called for a disturbance, arrests may be made, but only with probable cause.
A.R.S. 13-3884, Arrest by Private Person: A private person may make an arrest:

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

Arrest by a citizen follows almost the same process as arrest carried out by a law enforcement officer. The arrest process involves the guilty individual’s apprehension and restraint, and permits weapon confiscation by the arrester. What makes apprehension by a citizen notable is: it is specifically performed by a civilian, and not an officially- recognized law enforcer. Only under particular circumstances may a citizen perform an arrest; these conditions differ from one state to another. Citizen arrests may not be conducted simply because the arrestee is detested or is only suspected of illegal activity. According to Arizonian legislature, a private individual can arrest another if an offense or misconduct breaching peace is witnessed, including but not restricted to, burglary, physical assault, persecution, disorderly conduct, and cruel treatment of animals. Further, citizen arrests may be conducted if an offense is committed and the civilian has reasonable cause to suspect the potential arrestee of offending. In such an arrest case, the arrester needs to notify the arrestee of the reason for arrest, as would be the course adopted by a law enforcement official in such a situation (Marroquin, n.d.). However, the only instance where this wouldn’t be performed is: in case the individual being apprehended tries to forcibly resist or run away, or if the information would jeopardize the arrest. The arrester may not utilize unreasonable or unnecessary force.

2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

Arrests by citizens are a constitutional right under Amendment IX, since its consequences include the person’s natural self- preservation right and defense. In fact, citizen arrest- related laws are seemingly based on Amendment II’s efficacy. In simple words, without firepower, a civilian will probably not be capable of arresting another. According to Arizonan state law (A.R.S), citizen apprehensions are valid when public offenses are perpetrated in the arrester’s presence or if the arrester has reasonable cause to believe the arrestee has perpetrated an offense, whether in the arrester’s presence or absence. Citizen arrest rights date back to the time of the English common law. Traditionally, prior to the contemporary police department system, citizen arrests formed a key component of law enforcement in and by the community. In the present day, all states still consider private citizen- conducted arrests to be lawful, though state laws on citizen-conducted arrests do not remain uniform. Normally, all states allows such arrests if the crime (a serious offense that whose typical punishment is, at the very least, a one- year jail sentence) is personally witnessed by the arrester, or the citizen’s aid is sought by law enforcement officials in carrying out an arrest. State law variations stem in instances of misdemeanors, peace violations, and offenses not actually witnessed by the arrester. Once an individual has perpetrated a crime that warrants citizen arrest (according to the relevant state law), the arrester needs to comply with specific guidelines for detaining the suspect and handing him over to the concerned authorities. Acceptable…