Court Opinion

ID: 9587630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:34.6714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:56.913073
License: Public Domain

*90Ruffin, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully with all that is said in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because it appears from the transcript that peace officers may be misapprehending the nature of a citizen’s arrest under Georgia law.
The evidence shows that Johnson was arrested by Danielle Buck, the Wal-Mart loss prevention agent on duty at the time of the incident. When Buck arrested Johnson, she completed a Wal-Mart form titled “ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSON.” The form provides in part: “I have arrested . . . [Johnson] for a misdemeanor violation of the state law and request you, as a peace officer, to transport this person to the Winder City Jail. I understand that it is my duty to obtain an arrest warrant as quickly as possible.” As stated by the majority, Buck never obtained a warrant, and Johnson was never prosecuted for the alleged state misdemeanor violation.
The officer who transported Johnson to jail repeatedly testified that Wal-Mart conducted a citizen’s arrest, that all he did was transport Johnson, and that because Wal-Mart “didn’t specify at the time if they wanted to make it a state charge or not,” he issued Johnson a City of Winder citation for violating a local ordinance. It appears from the officer’s testimony that he believed the Wal-Mart loss prevention agent had the option of arresting Johnson for committing either a state misdemeanor or violating a local ordinance. This is not the case.
Under Georgia law, “[a] private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.”1 However, because the Code section establishing this authority is in “derogation of the common law protecting the liberty of the citizen,” it is strictly construed.2 So construed, our Supreme Court has ruled that it authorizes arrest only for “offenses amounting to a misdemeanor or a felony [under state law], and not [for] infractions of municipal ordinances as such.”3
Thus, it is clear that Wal-Mart’s agent arrested Johnson for a state law misdemeanor violation because her authority extended only so far. As stated by the majority, Wal-Mart never obtained a warrant or otherwise pursued this state misdemeanor charge, and this supported the store’s liability for false arrest. The transporting officer erroneously believed that Wal-Mart’s loss prevention agent could, as a private citizen, arrest Johnson for violating a local ordinance. The agent had no such authority, but the transporting officer nevertheless charged Johnson with violating a local ordinance. Wal*91Mart’s pursuit of this latter charge supported a verdict for malicious prosecution.
Decided March 14, 2001
Reconsideration denied April 11,2001
McLain & Merritt, Albert J. Decusati, for appellant.
James A. Goldstein, Peter A. Law, for appellee.
Peace officers who comply with the citizen’s arrest statute, act in good faith, and within the scope of their authority cannot be held liable for false arrest.4 However, such officers, and civilians for that matter, should be cognizant that OCGA § 17-4-60 does not authorize a private citizen to arrest an offender for a municipal violation.5

 OCGA § 17-4-60.

 Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440, 445 (3) (85 SE 328) (1915).

 (Emphasis supplied.) Id.

 OCGA § 17-4-61 (c).

 See Graham, supra.