[jMyles]

The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two; it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.

Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?

Has a court ever held this?

[dragonwriter]

> The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two;

It authorized for one what it does not authorize for the other. That's how a law provided for a difference.

> it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.

It authorizes police officers to “use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” There is no “only” there, the reason you can add “only” and not be wrong is that use of force is otherwise prohibited by law.

It also specifically states that, for peace officers, certain actions in the course of arrest will not be held to make the aggressors or outside the bounds of self-defense, overriding general principles of criminal law regarding assault and homicide.

> Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?

First, the reference to 836.5(a) was to the presence (not absence) of similar language for arrest by public employees who are not peace officers.

Second, the absence of similar language means that citizens arrest does not benefit from the additional authorizations granted police or public employee arrests.

It does benefit from a narrower grant of reasonable restraint that applies to all arrests in Section 835: “The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.”

[jMyles]

I think you've got it a bit wrong. It looks to me like this statute is simply limiting the liability of a peace officer who does in fact follow the law (ie, by using reasonable force).

It does not authorize any additional use of force - "reasonable force" is exactly the same standard for all arrests in California, whether effected by sworn officers or not, eg:

> When assaulted Edwards was justified in using such force as was reasonable for defendant's arrest and detention and to enlist his brother's assistance to aid him in making the arrest.

§§ 835, 839; People v. Lathrop, 49 Cal. App. 63, 67 [192 P. 722]

In California, as with most common-law places, you can delegate the arresting action to a peace officer (ie, you can say, I want to arrest Joe; he stole my car). If you go and tell a peace officer that, but you were lying, that peace officer isn't subject to civil liability.

Here's a publication on this topic from Alameda County (and note that it also confirms that a citizen, whether peace officer or not, may use reasonable force to effect an arrest):

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/Citize...