Use of ForceQuestion 89 of 200
Civil immunity for false arrest under California law extends most fully to:
a.Any person making any arrest in good faith
b.Private security guards making §837 arrests
c.Peace officers acting with reasonable cause and without malice under Civil Code §43.55 and PC §847(b); private persons depend on actually meeting §837's elements (particularly the §837(3) 'in fact committed' rule)
d.Property owners only
Explanation
Civil Code §43.55 and PC §847(b) protect peace officers from civil liability for false arrest if they acted on reasonable cause and without malice. Private persons (including security guards) do not have an equivalent broad immunity — their protection hinges on actually satisfying §837's elements. This asymmetry is one reason BSIS training repeatedly emphasizes the strict in-presence and 'in fact committed' rules of §837. Options (a), (b), (d) overstate or misallocate immunity in ways that produce false-arrest liability when relied upon.
Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §847(b); Civil Code §43.55Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- After using force resulting in any apparent injury, the guard's medical-care duty is to:
- After deploying OC pepper spray on a subject, the guard should generally:
- The phrase 'reasonable belief' for use-of-force purposes most accurately means:
- Recognizing acute behavioral crisis (formerly often labeled "excited delirium") and adjusting response is now a recognized California training expectation because:
- California's 'officer-created jeopardy' (or 'pre-shooting tactical') doctrine — recognized in Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622 — provides that:
- Synthesizing the chapter: which statement BEST summarizes a private security guard's use-of-force authority in California?
Last reviewed: · editorial process
PrepPass Editorial Team · Verified against California BSIS Guard Card Exam · How we review