## Facts

- Rolland P. Weddell operated a construction business in Carson City, Nevada.
- A late-model Chevrolet Blazer entered the business premises; as an employee approached, the vehicle accelerated, turned toward him, struck him, and a passenger made threatening statements related to Weddell’s daughter.
- The employee reported a partial license plate number to police and to Weddell.
- Weddell learned the Bustamonte brothers were seeking his daughter regarding an alleged drug transaction and provided their address to a detective.
- Believing law enforcement response was too slow, Weddell went to the address, saw a similar vehicle, and called police.
- Before officers arrived, Weddell positioned his car to block the vehicle, pointed a gun at James Bustamonte, and attempted to make a citizen’s arrest by ordering Bustamonte to place his hands on the hood.
- When Bustamonte ran, Weddell fired multiple shots at him.
- Weddell claimed he was authorized, as a private person, to use deadly force if necessary to arrest a suspected fleeing felon.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada law permits a private person making a citizen’s arrest to use deadly force to arrest or prevent the escape of a suspected felon.
2. Whether deadly force by a private citizen during a citizen’s arrest is legally unreasonable unless used in self-defense or defense of others against a threat of serious bodily injury.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the charges and remanded.
- The court held a private person making an arrest under NRS 171.126 may use no more force than is necessary and reasonable to secure the arrest.
- The court held deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable for a private citizen effecting a citizen’s arrest unless used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious bodily injury.
- The court concluded the district court erred by treating Weddell’s use of deadly force to effect a citizen’s arrest as permissible as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada’s citizen’s-arrest statute (NRS 171.126) authorizes certain arrests by private persons but does not grant a special privilege to use deadly force to prevent escape.
- The legislature’s repeal of the prior statutory codification of the common-law fleeing-felon rule for private persons, together with enactment of limits on police use of deadly force (NRS 171.1455), reflects rejection of broad private-citizen deadly-force authority.
- For private persons, the force used to make a citizen’s arrest must be necessary and reasonable; deadly force is per se unreasonable absent a threat of serious bodily injury justifying self-defense or defense of others.
- Justification for shooting during a citizen’s arrest must be assessed under ordinary self-defense/defense-of-others standards, not under a fleeing-felon arrest rationale.

## Conclusion

Nevada law limits a private person making a citizen’s arrest to necessary and reasonable force; deadly force cannot be used to stop a suspected felon’s flight unless it is justified by self-defense or defense of others against a threat of serious bodily injury, so dismissal of charges based on a broader fleeing-felon theory was improper.


State v. Weddell, 27 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2001)