A security guard sees a person acting suspiciously near merchandise but has not seen a theft. The guard approaches and asks the person to stop and speak briefly. This encounter is best characterized as:
Explanation
California recognizes three levels of encounter: (1) consensual contact — no restraint, no justification required; (2) detention — temporary restraint requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; (3) arrest — full custody requiring reasonable/probable cause. A consensual approach where the person remains free to walk away is not a seizure (People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373). Once a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, a detention has occurred and must be justified. A full arrest requires §837 authority. The Fourth Amendment applies most directly to government actors; private security operates within state-law constraints, primarily §490.5 and §837.
Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §490.5; People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- A security guard arrests a person believing a felony robbery occurred. Investigation reveals the suspect's roommate had given permission to take the property — no felony was in fact committed. Under §837(3), what is the guard's exposure?
- After a lawful private-person arrest, Penal Code §847 requires the private person to:
- Penal Code §490.5(f) ('shopkeeper's privilege') allows a merchant or merchant's agent (including a security guard) to:
- When making a private-person arrest, what does Penal Code §841 generally require the arrestor to do?
- Under §841, when may notification of authority to arrest be omitted?
- A security guard effects a lawful citizen's arrest. The suspect resists. What force standard applies to the private person?
Last reviewed: · editorial process