Two Bottles and a Sidewalk

Criminal Code s. 494(2) - the owner or lawful possessor of property, or a person authorized by them, may arrest without warrant a person found committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. Theft under $5,000 (s. 334) is a criminal offence and you watched the whole sequence: selection, concealment, passing the point of sale. Your written authorization from the site supervisor is what puts you inside the "authorized person" category; without it you are just a bystander.

Criminal Code s. 494(1)(a) - the general citizen's power, but it covers only indictable offences. Theft under is a hybrid offence and you cannot assume the Crown would proceed by indictment, so s. 494(2) is the sounder footing.

Trespass to Property Act (Alta.) - the occupier or an authorized person may arrest someone found committing an offence under that Act (entry without consent, or failing to leave after notice). That power ended at the property line; on the sidewalk it is no help.

ss. 25–26 Criminal Code - any force must be reasonable and no more than necessary, and excessive force is itself an offence. Section 35 protects defence of property; it does not protect retaliation.

Policy is not law, but it is a constraint. It records your employer's risk assessment, and breaching it becomes evidence that you departed from a reasonable standard of care.

Conclusion: s. 494(2) arguably survives a short fresh pursuit, but you would be off the property, alone, out of policy, and holding a man for 12 minutes. The defensible course is to let him go, call police with description and direction of travel, and preserve the video and stock count.

Sequence

1. Identify yourself truthfully - name, "security officer," not police. Impersonating a peace officer is an offence and destroys your credibility later.
2. State the arrest and the reason in plain words: "You are under arrest for theft of two bottles from the store. I am a security officer acting for the store." A person must know they are under arrest and why.
3. Do not search him. A citizen's arrest carries no general search power. A protective pat-down is at best a narrow, contested safety measure; rummaging in the backpack is not available to you.
4. Use minimum contact - a hand on the arm, a guiding hold. Handcuffs only if he is actively violent and you are trained and authorized; they are a use of force, not a prop.
5. Call police immediately and keep the line open. Update them that you are holding a male.
6. Deliver him forthwith. "Forthwith" means promptly, not instantly; 12 minutes of quiet waiting is likely fine, an hour in a back room is not.

Abandon points - any one of these ends it: he produces a weapon or reaches for one; the three bystanders move in; he breaks free and runs; he goes limp and you would have to drag him; he shows medical distress (chest pain, trouble breathing, a diabetic episode); your partner is not there to back you up. Chasing a fleeing shoplifter down a public sidewalk for $118 fails every proportionality test.

The case will be built on records, not on your memory.

• Video is the evidence. Flag the exact camera, aisle and timestamp, and ask the manager to export and preserve the clip before the recorder overwrites it. Note who exported it and when - that is the start of your continuity trail.
• Independent proof of loss: till receipts, the stock count, and the empty slot on the shelf photographed as found.
• Your notes: 24-hour times, distances, what you saw versus what you inferred, the exact words used, and a physical description (height, build, clothing, backpack, direction of travel).
• Witnesses: your partner's name and the three bystanders, with contact details if they will give them.
• Your report: chronological, factual, and honest about the decision not to pursue. Write the policy reason. A report that hides the gap invites the suggestion you had no reason at all.
• Do not name the man as the thief in the report - describe the person you observed and let the evidence do the identifying.