Quote:
Originally Posted by Ped
Wouldn't the fact that he received a summons indicate that either previously or during this incident he was asked to leave and refused?
Again not sure, not as far as Albert provincial law goes.
|
Yes, that's possible. But the summons could also indicate that the guards told the police he was trespassing, which would be enough for the police to decide to issue the summons even in the absence of any other evidence. It doesn't tell us what form of notice he was given, or whether that notice was given before or after he entered the property. In either event, the arrest is justified provided that notice was given (in some form) and that on receiving such notice the individual refused to leave. That all may have happened.
We don't really have enough information to be sure. The fact that the incident happened outside is not determinative, since the agent has this authority in a "parking structure" as well as "land used in connection with a premises," which o would take to include the parking lot. However, if the evidence shows that the individual was in the process of leaving, that will look bad for the mall cops. Again, we just don't know.
But if he was trespassing (that is to say, he was given proper notice to leave and refused) then s. 494(2) of the Criminal Code authorizes a citizen's arrest . The remaining questions will then be whether the guards' actions were reasonable in the circumstances and whether they promptly turned him over to the custody of the police without delay.