When can a citizens arrest be made and how much force can be used?
<p>My understanding of a citizen’s arrest that it's when is a person detains another person who is caught committing a crime until police arrive. If the person tries to leave how much force can the arrester use? How certain must they be that the person did in fact commit a crime?</p>
<p>Recently there have been a number of sting operations by the Creep Catcher group, where they pretend to be young girls on dating websites and meet with an older male. They confront the person, film it, and make a citizen’s arrest. These stings have been <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/3384957/surrey-creep-catcher-uses-physical-force-in-another-sting/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">increasingly violent</a>.</p>
<p>One thing I don't get is: technically no crime has been committed yet, as there never was a young girl, so how can an arrest be made? Also, in many situations, they change the age after they agree to meet, so would this be entrapment?</p>
<p>In <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14679/when-in-consent-necessary-for-touching-someone">this question</a> it says consent must be given for <em>any</em> physical contact. Is an exception made for citizens arrest?</p>
<p>Make no mistake, I'm against pedophiles etc. but I do think the tactics Creep Catchers use are unjust. I mean, what would people think if they saw police officers doing the same thing as Creep Catchers.</p>

<p>The power of arrest is a common law power that predates police forces, that is, every citizen had an obligation to maintain the king's peace by arresting criminals. With the rise of modern police forces, the police inherited this general right to make arrest but it still remained a power of every citizen.</p>

<p>How much of this right remains  depends on your jurisdiction and how the common law of "arrest" has been transformed by statute and case law.</p>

<p>The common law right <strong>only</strong> extends to arresting someone in the <strong>commission</strong> of a crime. In the example you cite, the <em>arrests</em> are probably unlawful and amount to the crime of kidnapping/deprivation of liberty/whatever its called where you are because the person is not <em>at that moment</em> committing a crime.</p>

<p>To arrest someone who you believe committed a crime <em>in the past</em>, you need a warrant or a power granted to you by some other statute (e.g. powers granted to police officers).</p>

<p>In either case, a person making an arrest is allowed to use reasonable force to do so.</p>

<p>Luring a child is a felony in Canada: see <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-172.1-20150717.html#wb-cont" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canada Criminal code 172.1</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by a means of telecommunication, communicates with</p>
  
  <p>(a) a person who is, <em>or who the accused believes is</em>, under the age of
  18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence
  with respect to that person under subsection 153(1), section 155,
  163.1, 170, 171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.03(2), 286.1(2), 286.2(2) or 286.3(2);</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and further paragraphs specify different ages and offenses. Cutting through the section number jungle, this covers any attempt to have sex with a minor. This law does not punish having sex with a minor (that's separate), this covers communication with that end in mind. The fact that the would-be child is an adult is irrelevant:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or
  (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen
  years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the
  absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed
  that the person was under that age.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If a 21 year old represents himself as being under 18, that fact proves that the accused has the requisite belief.</p>

<p>The Canada Dept. of Justice has a <a href="http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/wyntk.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">position on citizen's arrests</a>, which would suggest "no you can't" (rather, you should call the police). That however is a suggestion, not a legal requirement. It is, however, correct, according to the law itself (federal), <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-494.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Criminal Code s. 494</a>, which states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) Any one may arrest without warrant</p>
  
  <p>(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or</p>
  
  <p>(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes</p>
  
  <p>(i) has committed a criminal offence, and</p>
  
  <p>(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority >to arrest that person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first condition sanctioning warrantless arrest is finding a person committing an indictable offense. The problem here is that in these scenarios, the arresting person has a reasonable suspicion that the accused <em>has</em> commited such an offense, but they did not find them committing such offense. Under (b), a reasonable belief arrest includes not only "has committed" but also "is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person", and the latter is not the case.</p>

<p>Since this would not be a lawful arrest, it would be unlawful battery (and other things, perhaps). Provincial law is unlikely to widen the scope of a citizen's arrest, </p>

canada arrest citizens-arrest