SIA has received numerous complaints over the past year from community members stating that they have experienced a non-responsive attitude from their local police agency when calling for assistance and placing a suspect under citizen's arrest.

An example would be a family living in City Heights. The family's son, 12 year old Javier was walking home from his school Horace Mann, when he was confronted by several older youths who held a knife to his neck asking him if he belonged to a gang. They then demanded his money and bicycle. Javier's older brother called the police and learned that the suspects were still hanging out down the street. Upon arrival of the police, the family was told that there was really nothing that could be done, and maybe they could let the school know what happened the next day. They were outraged during our video interview of them, and wondered if the police officer would rather their son join a local street gang to have protection. Video Interview

Another example of this non-responsiveness is an incident in which a college student who was mentoring his cousins to help them resist the gang influence found in City Heights. While dropping his cousins off at their apartment, he witnesses an older gang member forcing young kids to fight, indoctrinating them into the gang lifestyle. The Mentor intervenes, and is attacked by the gang member. The police are called, he desires prosecution, and the police tell the gang member if he wants to avoid the arrest, he can simply threaten to place the Mentor under citizen's arrest as well. The gang member is told that most people will drop the case after being told this. Obviously the gang member agrees, the police officer escapes the burden of having to complete paperwork, and yet another pillar in the community is failed by the very person who could have empowered him. Video Interview

Many stores have reported that more and more, upon officers arriving to calls for shoplifters, they are being told that the police no longer are required to issue citations when citizen's place individuals under citizen's arrest.

Section 142 of the California Penal Code states:

142. (a) Any peace officer who has the authority to receive or
arrest a person charged with a criminal offense and willfully refuses to receive or arrest that person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the sheriff may determine whether any jail, institution, or facility under his or her direction shall be designated as a reception, holding, or confinement facility, or shall be used for several of those purposes, and may designate the class of prisoners for which any facility shall be used.

In plain English, according to the above penal code, a police officer MUST take custody of a person who has been placed under citizen's arrest. However, recently an addition was added to this section. Subsection C was added with little to no knowledge from the general public. Subsection (c) states:

(c) This section shall not apply to arrests made pursuant to Section 837.

Section 837 specifically addressed the power private citizen's have to place a person under citizen's arrest for violating the law. Section 837 reads:

837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

The bottom line, the police no longer have the accountability afforded by the law prior to subsection (c) being added. Police are now quoting this new law when confronted by the public demanding to know why they are refusing to process individuals being placed under citizen's arrest. The Legislative intent of the Senate Bill can be found by clicking Legislative Intent 142PC

The reason for this section being added is argued by police as a means for them to not have to process individuals who have been placed under citizen's arrest when a crime has not been committed. Interestingly, the law previous to the added subsection allowed an officer to have discretion when he or she did not believe a crime was committed. This is found in California Penal Code section 849 (b)(1) which states:

849. (a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise released, shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the
offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.
(b) Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of taking such person before a magistrate, any person arrested without a warrant whenever:
(1) He or she is satisfied that there are insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested was arrested for intoxication only, and no further proceedings are desirable.
(3) The person was arrested only for being under the influence of a controlled substance or drug and such person is delivered to a facility or hospital for treatment and no further proceedings are desirable.
(c) Any record of arrest of a person released pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (b) shall include a record of release. Thereafter, such arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a detention only.

The problem with this new section is the fact that the police now have zero accountability in handling a proper citizen's arrest. There is a conflict of interest within the police organization. A Police Department currently is evaluated based on the crime statistics alone. This creates a conflict for the following reasons. A Police Chief is concerned with keeping or maintaining low crime statistics. If the police officers are not taking crime reports, or persons being placed under citizen's arrest, the crime stats and arrest stats for the department will obviously be reduced.

When evaluating a police department's effectiveness, it is essential that the following be considered: If the calls for service statistics are substantially increased to that of the statistics for crime and arrest reports, there may be an issue of non-reponsiveness. For example in the graph below let us examine the statistical implications:

It is imperative that police departments compare their calls for service statistics with the crime and arrest report statistics. Additionally, officers must be held accountable when refusing to assist the public when a crime has been committed. We did receive the statistical data from the San Diego Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, and Chula Vista Police Department. For comparative details, click here. Note the percentage of crime reports and arrests per calls dispatched. The results are interesting. We will be compiling additional agencies across the country as the data is received.

Change does not occur overnight. Additionally, it is necessary for the public to support the police in its efforts to support the public in reducing crime. Often times a gap widens between the police and the community in which the divisiveness is a no win situation.

What is the answer? It begins with the leadership of the police agency being responsive toward the communities in which they serve.

In March 2005, Chief William Lansdowne of the San Diego Police Department reported that crime was down in San Diego. Interestingly, the Chief advised that auto thefts were on the rise. This gives even more clear evidence that there is an issue with under reporting of crimes. A report MUST be taken when a victim reports an auto theft, thus it is difficult if not impossible to kiss off a request for a report from the public because a report is required to enter the vehicle into the Stolen Vehicle System. When a city reports their crime is in decline, but there is a distinct increase in auto theft crimes, I would suggest that this discrepancy generally indicates other crimes are going unreported by officers who refuse to take a report for a victim of other crimes, or talks the victim out of filing a report.