Art. 18.16. [325] [376] [364] PREVENTING CONSEQUENCES OF
THEFT. Any person has a right to prevent the consequences of theft
by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing
it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that
person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or
delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the
theft to a peace officer for that purpose. To justify a seizure
under this article, there must be reasonable ground to believe the
property is stolen, and the seizure must be openly made and the
proceedings had without delay.
Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 985, ch. 399, Sec. 2(E), eff.
Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 109, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1,
2001.
2006-12-09 13:08:42 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
This is a "citizens arrest." But be careful, as one person mentioned, holding someone against their will is serious. Kidnapping would be tough to prove but unlawful arrest is not. You need to weigh the crime against the possible retribution the person may have. I say chase down the ditry bastard and take your chances. If more people did this, lawyers would have a more difficult time defending their clients.
2006-12-09 18:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by crawschecker 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, here goes: Sounds like if (for example) I'm a clerk in a store, and I spy you stealing something...say, you've stuffed it in your pocket...I am allowed, by law, to bring your hindparts in to the police station, along w/ the stolen items and by doing so, I've "prevented the consequences of theft" (meaning, the goods would be gone!). Actually, sounds like this law would give ANY citizen the right to take one down to the police station in an attempt to prevent the "consequences of theft".
2006-12-09 13:54:48 · answer #2 · answered by megamillions1m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good example of this in action would be if a pawnbroker was asked to pawn an item he/she knew to be stolen, THEN they could "prevent consequences of theft", i.e., the stolen goods travelling farther into the marketplace, by turning that person in.
2006-12-09 13:18:12 · answer #3 · answered by Sels 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, like most thing in law you need some shyster lawyer to tell you what it might mean then a judge will tell you what he thinks it means before a appeals judge dips his ore and hands it back to the judge that you started with but by that time the shyster you hired in the first place moved on so you have to get another one to take his place. It's all about money....
2006-12-09 13:54:57 · answer #4 · answered by Billy M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This applies to those to have unwittingly and without knowledge accepted stolen property, in this event the unwitting person now wants to clear him or her of any consequences from their action. Which could be civil and/or criminal matter, pending a complete investigation.
2006-12-09 13:40:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beware. Holding another person against their will is Kidnapping. I know someone in Conneticut who called a bail bondsman on someone who had got out on bail and broke bail and the bail bondsman said "keep her there" and when the cops showed this guy was arrested and served over a year for Kidnapping this criminal who jumped bail. So be careful. Leave it to the cops. Its apparently not our business if the world goes to hell.
2006-12-09 13:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by friendly advice from maine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like the reason stores have loss prevention personall and can arrest shoplifters and turn them over to the police.
2006-12-09 13:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by cowrepo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a citizen's arrest -- you take the person who stole something and whatever they stole to the police.
2006-12-09 13:11:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say this is Citizen's Arrest.
2006-12-09 13:16:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋