[delacoert]

You came loaded for bear and all I have is this pea shooter.

I never have and never will feel the need to have the Supreme Court's backing to express my opinion and stand by it.

All I can site is a bunch of ifs in response to your apparent apology for doing nothing, but here goes:

If some Arizona Minutemen did detain some individuals who had crossed the boarder illegally...

...and if these illegals officially lodged a complaint with their (Mexican) government...

...and if the Mexican government managed to get charges filed against some Minutemen...

The Minutemen could and should claim that they witnessed a breach of the peace during the course of events that followed their intervention of an illegal boarder crossing.

The story might go: "After watching these guys cross the border, we walk up to them and asked them politely who they were and what they were doing. One of them began screaming profanities and threatened to kill us if we tried to stop them. Having witnessed this breach of the peace we detained these individuals until we could turn them over to law enforcement personnel."

I would chose to believe the word of my countrymen over that of an illegal border crosser just like a police officer's testimony is believed over that of a suspect. How about you?

Does the Ninth Amendment give the Minutemen the right to make the citizen's arrest in circumstances such as this? I think so but that's just my opinion.

Does Arizona statute preserve such a right in circumstances such as this? I think so but that's just my opinion.

Do the laws in all 50 states, governing under what circumstances a private person may make effect a citizen's arrest preserve such a right in circumstances such as this? I don't know for sure, but I hope so.

It isn't as hard for citizens to stand up and do the right thing when their government won't as you seem to maintain.

[Boot Hill]

Thanks for the thoughful reply.

"Does the Ninth Amendment give the Minutemen the right to make the citizen's arrest in circumstances such as this?"
So far there is no case law to support this, but a very credible case can be made that this is so.

"A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment."   (source)

"One of them began screaming profanities and threatened to kill us if we tried to stop them. Having witnessed this breach of the peace we detained these individuals..."

According the Arizona statutes, the breach of the peace must result from the same misdemeanor that you're making the citizen's arrest for. In other words, you can't use the fighting words to effect a citizen's arrest for an immigration violation.

However, invasion would, by very definition, be a breach of the peace. And there are ample public statements and actions by the Mexican government showing them to be condoning, aiding and abetting the illegal immigration, so much so that the very nature of the offense changes from being one of illegal immigration to being an actual invasion by a foreign power.

Here is another aspect of effecting a citizen's arrest of illegal immigrants. Those siding with the criminal aliens, Vincente Fox, Aztlan and the ACLU, claim that unless you actually witness the illegal immigrant coming across the border, then you haven't met the standard of §13-3884, that requires that the offense must be committed in the presence of the party making the arrest.

That claim is bogus and here's why. Crimes can be classed as being either of two types: isolated offenses or continuous offenses. An example of a continuous offense would be kidnapping, where the crime in on-going, and not completed, as long as the victim is held by the offender.

"A “continuous offense” or “continuing offense” is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set in motion by a single impulse and operated by unintermittent force; it is a breach of criminal law, not terminated by a single act or fact, but subsisting for a definite period and intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences."   (source)

There is ample court precedent stating that the crime of entering this country illegally is an ongoing or continuous crime. In other words, as long as they remain in this country, they are in continuous and immeditate violation of the law. So it is not necessary that you actually see them cross the border, it is sufficient that you merely see them in this country in order to hold them for the authorities, providing you have sufficient cause, based on the circumstances of the detention, that they are illegal aliens.

Any case based upon the principles we've been discussing would certainly be a "case of first impression" for an Arizona court, but under the present circumstances of invasion, it could possibly be a chance worth taking. We need a volunteer!

--Boot Hill