The lawfulness of an arrest made by an investigator who was also a peace officer must be tested by § 836.

—it is not apparent from the facts given whether a felony had actually been committed or not. In any event the arrest would have been justified, under this section if a felony had been committed, and under 121 (b) if it had not

The trial court, it appeared, had erroneously told the jury that there was no reasonable cause for arrest unless the value of property taken exceeded $200

The right to make an arrest does not depend upon the results of further investigation thereafter made whereby the innocence of the arrested person may be established.

We believe the evidence justified the implied finding of the jury that there was, as a matter of fact, and a reasonable belief of such fact on the part of Jordan, that an assault with a deadly weapon (a felony) was then being committed by plaintiff and that an arrest of plaintiff for such an offense, without a warrant, was authorized under section 836 of the Penal Code

—an off-duty policeman, working as a security guard for a drug store, caused the plaintiff to be arrested for shoplifting.

It is really the "apparent" guilt that the officer is concerned with in most cases, as the lawfulness of an arrest is not at all affected by the results of subsequent investigation which establishes that the suspect was innocent

Thus spoke Mr. Justice Frankfurter for the majority of the United States Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado

CASx NOTEs rant one whom he has reasonable or probable grounds to suspect of having committed a felony.

In relying on advice of counsel, there is no duty to investigate for other facts if complete disclosure of known facts is made.

[CITATION] California Criminal Law

[CITATION] California Jury Instructions, Civil: Book of Approved Jury Instructions Baji