Powers to ArrestQuestion 9 of 200

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?

a.None — a good-faith belief that a felony occurred fully protects the private arrestor
b.Potentially liable for false arrest — §837(3) requires that 'a felony has been in fact committed'
c.Liable only for battery if force was used — false arrest additionally requires proof that the guard acted with malice
d.Protected, because reasonable cause to believe a crime had occurred existed at the moment of the arrest

Explanation

Penal Code §837(3) requires both (1) that 'a felony has been in fact committed' AND (2) that the arrestor have reasonable cause to believe the arrestee committed it. If no felony was in fact committed — even with reasonable belief — the arrest fails to meet §837(3) and exposes the private person to false-arrest civil liability (Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579). This is the key difference from peace-officer §836 authority, which generally protects officers acting on reasonable cause even if no crime occurred. Where §837(1) (in-presence) applies, it provides a surer authority.

Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §837(3); Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579

This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →

Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.

Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →

Related questions on this topic

Last reviewed: · editorial process

PrepPass team · Verified against California BSIS Guard Card Exam · How we review
Report